On the heels of such a miserable year, it may have seemed counterintuitive to provide a positive outlook for the speculative biotechnology industry in 2009, but that’s exactly what we did.  Our bullish thesis was reiterated for both 2010 and 2011.

The AMEX Biotechnology Index (BTK) ended 2008 at 647.17 and climbed to 1,091.42 by the end of 2011 for a gain of approximately 69% during this three-year period.  Comparing this performance with the general market, the NASDAQ Composite increased 65% from 1,577.03 to 2,605.15 during the same period.

Our favorable outlook for the biotechnology industry remains intact for 2012 and is based on the following key drivers, which build upon many of the catalysts we first proposed in 2009:

• Sector’s defensive characteristics and impact on future economic growth
• Improving number of annual new product approvals since the low set in 2007
• Record number of products in clinical trials and annual industry R&D investment
• Improving access to capital
• Brisk pace of industry consolidation and licensing transactions
• Many micro, small and mid-capitalization companies remain undervalued

Defensive Sector and Economic Driver

During periods of economic uncertainty, the biotechnology sector is often portrayed as defensive given that disease is relentless in both good economic times and bad.  Despite recent medical advances, there remains a need for quality, innovative products to diagnose and treat a broad variety of diseases such as cancer, central nervous system disorders, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, respiratory and infectious diseases.

Beyond its defensive characteristics, the sector plays a critical role in the United States [US] economy.  Innovative new medicines developed by life science companies provide better patient outcomes, improved quality of care, increased life expectancy, and lead to economic gains and job creation.

While the strengths and weaknesses of the US healthcare system remain the subject of great debate, we believe new medicines should be viewed as investments in the future, not only in patient health – but also in economic recovery and growth.  For example, as indicated in our article “Innovative New Medicines are Key to Economic Growth,” a permanent 1% reduction in mortality from cancer alone has a present value to current and future generations of Americans of nearly $500 billion and a cure would be worth about $50 trillion.

New Drug Approvals

As we highlighted in recent years, legislation passed in 2008 gave the FDA more money and resources, but hiring and training hundreds of new employees takes time.  With that process well underway, combined with increased familiarity of the risk evaluation and mitigation strategies [REMS] program, we expected the drug approval process to gradually improve.

Encouragingly, the total number of approvals for new molecular entities and biologic license applications by the US Food and Drug Administration’s [FDA] Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER] in fiscal year 2011 was 35.  This is an improvement from 21 approvals in 2010 and 25 approvals in 2009.  In fact, according to a press announcement by the FDA, this is among the highest number of approvals in the past decade, surpassed only by 37 approvals in 2009.

However, an article in Nature Reviews by Asher Mullard listing the annual number of drug approvals going back to 1996 shows that 36 approvals in 2004 [not 2009] was the record for the past decade.  The same article also shows that new drug approvals peaked at a high of 56 in 1996.

Notable new drug approvals in 2011 include Johnson & Johnson’s (JNJ) Zytiga® [abiraterone] for late-stage prostate cancer, Roche’s Zelboraf® [vemurafenib] and Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (BMY) Yervoy™ [ipilimumab] both for melanoma, Human Genome Sciences’ (HGSI) Benlysta® [belimumab] – the first new drug for lupus in 50 years, and Seattle Genetics’ Adcetris™ [brentuximab vedotin] for a rare lymphoma known as systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma [ALCL].

Record Pipeline and Investment

According to the latest report by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America [PhRMA], there are a record number of biotechnology product candidates currently in development.  In the US alone, there are more than 900 biotechnology products in development, including 300 monoclonal antibodies, 298 vaccines, 78 recombinant proteins, 50 gene therapy products, 64 cell therapy products, and 23 antisense products.  More than one-third of these product candidates are targeting cancer and related conditions and more than 20% are targeting infectious diseases.

Annual research and development expenditures by PhRMA member companies for 2009 was an estimated $45.8 billion, more than tripling the $15.2 billion level of investment in 1995.  However, skeptics will point to the fact that despite growing R&D expenditures, the number of new drug approvals has declined since the mid-1990s [see chart below].

Access to Capital

During the second week of January, more than 8,000 registrants gathered in San Francisco, California for the 30^th Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference [JPMHC] to hear 25-minute presentations from 395 life science companies.  For industry executives and investors, the annual event typically serves as a good barometer for the rest of the year.

Between meetings, we roamed the familiar halls of the Westin St. Francis Hotel to assess the mood among participants and also monitored social media outlets throughout the event.  In general, the plane flights and networking receptions were crowded as usual, industry observers “Tweeted” a sense of optimism, and attendees appeared more upbeat than in 2011.

The recent closing of three new funds may support increased optimism as it relates to access to capital.  First, on January 3, 2012, Vivo Ventures announced the final closing of a $375 million fund targeting later development stage pharmaceutical and medical device companies in the US and in revenue stage healthcare companies in greater China.  Second, during the JPMHC Canaan Partners announced the closing of a $600 million fund, with one-third of the fund designated to healthcare investments in biopharmaceutical, medical device and healthcare infrastructure companies.  Also during the JPMHC, Flagship Ventures announced the closing of a $270 million life sciences fund, its largest fund to date.   According to Flagship’s press release, in addition to investing in early-stage companies, a portion of the new fund will be dedicated to “later-stage value investing opportunities resulting from the current capital-constrained environment.”  Finally, Luke Timmerman of Xconomy recently reported that Frazier Healthcare is also aiming for its first biotechnology fund since 2007.

Last year wasn’t too bad either.  In 2011, venture capitalists invested $28.4 billion in 3,673 deals, an increase of 22% in dollars and a 4% rise in deals over the prior year, according to the MoneyTree™ Report by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the National Venture Capital Association [NVCA], based on data from Thomson Reuters.  In fact, venture capital investing in 2011 ranks in the top three years for venture capital investing in the past decade.  Biotechnology was the second largest investment sector, with $4.7 billion going into 446 deals.  This represents a 22% increase in investment dollars, but a 9% drop in terms of the number of deals.

2012 is also off to a solid start with regard to follow-on financings.  Synageva (GEVA), Arena Pharmaceuticals (ARNA), iBio (IBIO), Talon Therapeutics (TLON), ImmunoCelluar Therapeutics (IMUC), Vical (VICL), Synta Pharmaceuticals (SNTA), Chelsea Therapeutics (CHTP), Sequenom (SQNM), ZIOPHARM Oncology (ZIOP), Neurocrine Biosciences (NBIX), and NeuroMetrix (NURO) have each announced offerings since the start of the year.

Consolidation and Licensing

Adding to the optimism among industry executives and investors during the JPMHC, Bristol-Myers Squibb announced its $2.5 billion acquisition of Inhibitex, Inc. (INHX) on January 7, 2012.  In view of the fact that US pharmaceutical companies stand to lose billions of revenue due to patent expirations from 2010 to 2012, we expect merger and acquisition [M&A] activity to remain brisk.

In other M&A news, ISTA Pharmaceuticals (ISTA) is still being pursued by Valeant Pharmaceuticals (VRX), which recently increased its previously proposed price to acquire ISTA from $6.50 to $7.50 per share in cash. Valeant also communicated to ISTA that it could achieve a price of up to $8.50 per share following confirmatory due diligence.

Licensing deal activity is also off to a strong start in 2012, as evidence by Xenon Pharmaceuticals’ strategic alliance with Genentech, a member of the Roche Group (RHHBY), to discover and develop compounds and companion diagnostics for the potential treatment of pain.

According to the deal, which was announced during JPMHC, Xenon is eligible to receive research, development and commercialization milestone payments, totaling up to $646 million for multiple products and indications.  In addition, Xenon will receive royalties on sales of products resulting from the collaboration.

In other licensing news, BioDelivery Sciences (BDSI) recently signed a worldwide license and development agreement with Endo Pharmaceuticals (ENDP) for the exclusive rights to develop and commercialize BEMA Buprenorphine for the treatment of chronic pain.

Small Versus Large

Similar to recent years, we expect that small and mid-capitalization companies with late-stage programs and/or positive fundamental catalysts will continue to outperform their larger industry peers in 2012.

For example, after being the third worst performer in the prior year, Medivation (MDVN) became the largest percentage gainer within the NASDAQ Biotech Index during 2011 based on encouraging results with MDV3100, the company’s lead product candidate in Phase 3 development for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer.

In another dramatic reversal of fortune, after declining 22% in 2009 shares of Akorn, Inc. (AKRX), a niche generic pharmaceutical company, made an impressive comeback by becoming the largest percentage gainer within the NASDAQ Biotech Index during 2010 and again making the list of top ten gainers in 2011 [see Table 1].

However, the prior year’s winners may not always stay hot.  Both Human Genome Sciences (HGSI) and Dendreon Corporation (DNDN) were among the top ten gainers from the NASDAQ Biotech Index in 2009 with dizzying returns of 1,342% and 474%, respectively.  In 2011, both names appear on the list of top ten decliners [see Table 2].

Table 1. Top ten gainers from NASDAQ Biotech Index (NBI) in 2011

Table 2. Top ten decliners from NASDAQ Biotech Index (NBI) in 2011

2012 Outlook

The drivers supporting our favorable outlook for the biotechnology industry remain intact for 2012, such as the record number of products in clinical trials and annual industry R&D investment, improving access to capital, brisk pace of industry consolidation and licensing transactions, and attractive valuations among many small- and mid-capitalization companies, which should continue to outperform their larger industry peers.  In particular, 2012 represents a period with particularly robust news flow for emerging immuno-oncology companies, as indicated in our article “2012 Preview: Cancer Immunotherapy Catalysts.”

While the FDA usually follows advice stemming from its AdCom meetings, it isn’t required to do so.  In fact, there have been several high-profile situations where the FDA has gone against such recommendations.

For example, many investors recall the volatility of Dendreon Corporation’s (DNDN) stock around the time of an AdCom meeting for the company’s Provenge® [sipuleucel-T] product candidate back in March 2007.  Share of Dendreon, which were trading below $5 per share before the AdCom meeting, reached $25 following a positive 13-4 vote in favor of the product’s efficacy.  Several months later, however, shares of Dendreon once again traded at $5 after the company received a CRL from the FDA.

More recently, InterMune, Inc. (ITMN) suffered a similar fate with its EsBriet™ [pirfenidone] product candidate for the treatment of mild to moderate idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis [IPF], a progressive and fatal lung disease.  Despite a 9-3 AdCom vote in favor of approving the drug, InterMune received a CRL from the FDA in May 2010, causing the value of its stock to decline from nearly $50 per share to less than $10.  Ironically, shares of InterMune rebounded significantly in December 2010 following a positive recommendation from the scientific body of the European Medicines Agency [EMA], which is responsible for reviewing all Marketing Authorization Applications [MMAs].

With this in mind, we tabulated the results from select FDA AdCom meetings conducted during 2010-2011 and compared the outcomes with the FDA’s ultimate decision to gauge how often the agency goes against its AdCom recommendations.  For the period, we found outcomes from 27 AdCom meetings for new drug applications [NDAs].  Of the 27 AdCom meetings, the FDA has not yet ruled on seven NDAs.  See Table 1 for details.

No Means No

Of the 20 AdCom meetings with corresponding decisions from the FDA, the agency agreed with all 9 of the negative AdCom recommendations and sent each of the sponsors a CRL.  In other words, a “no” vote from an AdCom meeting was unlikely to be overturned by the FDA during the period.  This doesn’t bode well for Eli Lilly & Co.’s (LLY) liprotamase product candidate for pancreatic insufficiency, which received a negative AdCom recommendation in January 2011 and is awaiting final FDA action.

In one situation where the AdCom vote was negative, the sponsor took action before the FDA rendered its final decision.  On December 17, 2010, King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (KG) and Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ACUR) submitted an NDA for Acurox® (oxycodone HCl) without niacin following a 19-1 AdCom vote in April 2010 against approval of Acurox® with niacin.

Yes Means Maybe

During the period, the FDA went against the positive recommendation of its AdCom members 5 out of 10 times [50%] and issued a CRL to the sponsor.  This includes one unanimous vote [13-0] in favor of the efficacy for ezogabine, which is being developed by GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (VRX) for the adjunctive treatment of adults with partial-onset seizures.  GlaxoSmithKline and Valeant indicated that the FDA cited non-clinical reasons for the CRL, but investors aren’t privy to the content of such documents.

The FDA is transparent with regard to drug approvals and withdrawals, but the contents of CRL’s are considered confidential because they represent part of an ongoing dialog between the agency and drug sponsor.  While many companies disclose whether or not a CRL contains a request for new clinical studies, translating into an investment of more capital and time, ambiguous phrases describing the contents of a CRL often leave investors in the dark with regard to handicapping the sponsor’s ability to address the issues in a timely and efficient manner – if at all.  Such secrecy has come under fire by members of the media, as evidenced by an October 2010 Forbes article titled “Why FDA Communications Must Be Public.”

For now, investors are warned that in the face of a positive AdCom recommendation, there is only a 50/50 chance that the FDA will promptly approve a product based on recent data.

Going Forward

The FDA has yet to rule on 7 product candidates with recent AdCom meetings, as indicated by “TBD” under FDA Action in Table 1.  While many of these AdCom meetings have positive outcomes, industry observers can flip a coin to determine whether or not the FDA will ultimately follow the AdCom’s advice in these situations based on recent data.  Even unanimous, favorable recommendations from AdCom members do not necessarily guarantee success with the FDA, although both Bayer AG (BAYRY.PK) and Oceana Therapeutics, Inc. (private) received such support for approval of their respective product candidates.

Investor’s expectations are very high for Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (HGSI), which was among the largest percentage gainers in the NASDAQ Composite with a staggering quadruple-digit return of +1,342% in 2009 following positive Phase 3 study results with its Benlysta® [belimumab] product candidate for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE].  The FDA is expected to render its decision by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act [PDUFA] date of March 10, 2011, and the company’s stock remains relatively unchanged around $25 per share following a positive 13-2 AdCom vote in November 2010.

Of the pending group, MELA Sciences, Inc. (MELA) appears to have the lowest probability of success with the FDA in view of the very narrow 8-7 AdCom vote in favor of the product candidate’s safety, efficacy and risk/benefit ratio, which led to new 52-week lows for the company’s stock.  The company is developing MelaFind®, a non-invasive and objective multi-spectral computer vision system designed to aid physicians in the detection of early melanoma, or skin cancer.

NEW – Click here to view this article in PDF format.

Table 1: AdCom Meetings and FDA Outcomes During 2010-2011

With few exceptions, companies with monoclonal antibody platforms have significantly outperformed the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index® (NBI) since the end of 2008 [see Table 1].  Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to offer several key factors that help explain the above average returns for monoclonal antibody companies during this +18-month period – a trend that we believe is likely to continue.

Table 1: Select public companies with monoclonal antibody platforms

Higher rate of success

In order to determine the appropriate current value for a biotechnology company, an investor would normally consider projected future cash flows resulting from product sales, probability of success, and a discount rate to reflect the risks that the company faces.

With regard to probability of success, one of the greatest considerations for a biotechnology company is the fact that new drug candidates must receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] before they can be marketed in the United States.  Receiving FDA approval is dependent, in part, on the drug candidate successfully passing a series of clinical trials that are generally conducted in three sequential phases.

Successfully transitioning from the early stages that establish safety [Phase I] to later phases where efficacy is demonstrated [Phase III] will improve the approval success rate [e.g., the odds that the drug will ultimately reach the market].  Interestingly, researchers from the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development at Tufts University recently analyzed the average approval success rates for investigational drugs first tested in humans from 1993 to 2004 [Ref 3] and found substantial differences between large molecules [32% success rate] and small molecules [13% success rate].  Monoclonal antibodies represented the largest group [47%] of the large molecules evaluated in the study.

In view of the fact that nearly one-third of large molecule product candidates entering the clinic ultimately receive FDA approval and that they are nearly 2.5-times more likely to ultimately receive approval than small molecule compounds, companies that are developing monoclonal antibodies should be awarded higher valuations due to the higher probability of success.

Reduced concerns from biosimilars

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PPACA], which was signed into law on March 23, 2010, included a provision amending the Public Health Service Act [PHSA] to permit approval of biosimilar biological products through an abbreviated biological license application [ABLA] submitted to the FDA.  Under the law, originators have a 12-year exclusivity period before a biosimilar is approved.

While many questions remain about the specifics of the ABLA process until the FDA releases its guidance, the PPACA does state that to support approval of a biosimilar, the sponsor must show that the product is “biosimilar to the reference product” based upon data derived from analytical, animal, and clinical studies.  As a result, it is unlikely that monoclonal antibody products will represent the first class of biosimilars on the market due to the fact that they have very specific binding properties and are typically larger and more complicated than other biologic drugs.

Regardless, according to a recent article by Ludwig Burger for Reuters, analysts expect price discounts of only 20 to 30 percent in markets affected by biosimilar competition, which compares with an average markdown of 90 percent for generic versions of small molecule drugs. This is likely due to the fact that development, production and marketing of a biosimilar costs more than making a generic copy of conventional chemical drugs.

Lastly, for those individuals that believe manufacturing biologic drugs is easy, a review of Genzyme Corporation’s (GENZ) recent challenges offers a different perspective.  See “Genzyme’s Manufacturing Disruption Highlights Investment Opportunities in Lysosomal Storage Disorders.”

Manufacturing processes have improved

In contrast to small molecule therapeutics that can be synthesized for $1 per gram and simple proteins like insulin that can be efficiently produced in bacterial hosts, monoclonal antibodies are normally produced in mammalian cells at a cost of $300-$5,000 per gram [Ref 4].

Fortunately, in parallel with the clinical and commercial success of monoclonal antibodies there have been major advances in cell line development, bioreactor construction and operation, purification strategies and analytics. For example, cell culture productivity has improved more than 100-fold in the last 15-years.  With these advances, global protein output using mammalian cell culture increased from under 500 kilograms in 2000 to 3,600 kilograms in 2005 and manufacturing costs have been reduced.

In addition to the aforementioned advances, new sources of inexpensive antibody production are being explored.  For example, antibodies have been expressed successfully in genetically modified plants and have been shown to retain their native functional forms.

Evolution from acute to chronic treatment

In the early 1980’s, most monoclonal antibodies were derived from mouse genes with major limitations such as inducing human anti-mouse antibody [HAMA] responses in patients, lack of effector functions and short plasma half-life [Ref 5].  Later that decade, genetic engineering techniques made chimeric and humanized versions available for study.  Until this point in time, most therapeutic monoclonal antibodies had been studied as acute treatments for cancer or immunological diseases [Ref 6].

By the late 1990’s, methods to produce human monoclonal antibodies were developed, including phage display and transgenic mice.  With the availability of human antibodies with reduced immunogenicity and increased efficacy, the biotechnology industry began studying monoclonal antibodies for the chronic treatment of non-life threatening diseases, which opened new market opportunities.

In this regard, KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (private) is applying its proprietary Humaneering™ technology platform to produce antibodies that are close to human germ-line in sequence while retaining the specificity and improving the affinity of the reference antibody.  KaloBios is developing an anti-GM-CSF human monoclonal [KB003] for the treatment of patients with autoimmune and chronic inflammatory conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.  Sales of two marketed monoclonal antibodies indicated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, Humira® [adalimumab] and Remicade® [infliximab], are projected to reach $15.8 billion in combined sales by 2016 according to Evaluate Pharma [Ref 2].

In January 2010, KaloBios partnered with Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccines division of sanofi-aventis Group (SNY), to develop the company’s Humaneered™ antibody fragment KB001 for the prevention and treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Pa) infections. KaloBios received an upfront payment of $35 million and is eligible for development, regulatory and commercial milestones totaling $255 million in addition to royalties on eventual product sales.

In addition, MacroGenics, Inc. (private) entered into a global strategic alliance with Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) in October 2007 valued at approximately $500 million for teplizumab, a humanized anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody currently being studied in a global pivotal Phase II/III clinical trial for individuals with recent-onset type 1 diabetes.

Licensing, merger, and acquisition dynamics

The higher average approval success rates with large molecules compared with small molecules appears to be partially reflected in the economics of some recent licensing and M&A transactions.

For example, in June 2010 OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (private) partnered with Bayer Schering Pharma AG (BAYRY.PK) to discover, develop and commercialize novel anti-cancer stem cell therapies including multiple antibody, protein therapeutics and small molecules targeting the Wnt signaling pathway.  For each drug candidate successfully developed through Phase III clinical trials and regulatory approval, OncoMed’s payments from Bayer could total up to $387.5 million for each biotherapeutic drug compared with $112 million for small molecule drugs.  Accordingly, potential payments for large molecules are 3.5 times greater than for the small molecules.

As another example, Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) acquired ImClone Systems, Inc. for $6.5 billion [5x sales of $1.3 billion], while Astellas Pharma, Inc. paid $4 billion for OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [3.3x sales of $1.2 billion].  Both ImClone and OSI received royalties on product sales from corporate partners.

ImClone’s marketed product Erbitux® [cetuximab] is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR] and is indicated for the treatment of certain types of colorectal cancer and as a single agent or in combination with radiation therapy for head and neck cancer.  OSI’s comparable product Tarceva® [erlotinib] is a small molecule antagonist of EGFR and is indicated for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer.  While this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, it does help support the fact that premiums are being paid for monoclonal antibodies versus small molecules.

Investors are also likely placing M&A premiums on monoclonal antibody companies due to robust activity during the past five years [see Table 2].  In fact, there has been at least one deal announced each year during this period.

Table 2: Select M&A among monoclonal antibody companies

Access to capital

Despite a challenging financing climate, many public monoclonal antibody developers referenced in Table 1 have been able to raise capital through public offerings.  For example, ImmunoGen, Inc. (IMGN) raised $77.6 million at $8.00 per share in May 2010, Micromet, Inc. (MITI) raised $80.5 million at $7.00 per share in March 2010, and Seattle Genetics, Inc. (SGEN) raised $136 million at $10.75 per share in August 2009.  This demonstrates strong investor appetite for monoclonal antibody companies, which could bode well for future initial public offerings [IPOs] given the paucity of public options in the sector due to M&A activity over the past few years.

Summary

Biotechnology companies developing monoclonal antibodies have been outperforming the broader sector for the past 18-months, a trend that is likely to continue based on higher average approval success rates, reduced concerns from biosimilars, improvements in manufacturing and resulting impact on margins, broadening utility beyond treating cancer and inflammation, robust partnering and M&A activity, and access to capital.

References

1. Roche Annual Report 2009 (www.roche.com/gb09e.pdf)
2. Evaluate Pharma World Preview 2016 Report
3. DiMasi, JA. Et al. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010 Mar;87(3):272-7. Epub 2010 Feb 3.
4. Chen, C. Trends in Bio/Pharmaceutical Industry. 2009 5(3).
5. Chan, A. Et al. Nat Rev Immun. 2010 May;10.
6. Reichert JM. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2008 Dec;9(6):423-30.

With 2009 officially on the books, it appears an appropriate time to review the sector’s performance along with some of the themes highlighted in our previous articles.

Big Versus Small

The twenty-member NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index (BTK) was up 46% in 2009, while the broader NASDAQ Biotech Index (NBI) was only up 16%, underperforming the Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDU), S&P 500 (SPX), and NASDAQ Composite (COMP), which were up 19%, 24%, and 44%, respectively.  Why the huge discrepancy in returns between these two major biotechnology indices?  Unlike the equal-weighted NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index, the NASDAQ Biotech Index is market value-weighted, taking into account the total market capitalization of the companies it tracks and not just their share prices.  Accordingly, companies with the largest market capitalizations, or the greatest values, will have the highest weighting in the index.

During 2009, large capitalization biotechnology companies [greater than $10 billion] dramatically underperformed their smaller peers.  For example, Celgene Corporation (CELG) was essentially flat, Amgen, Inc. (AMGN) was down 2%, Gilead Sciences, Inc. (GILD) declined by 15%, and Genzyme Corporation (GENZ) dropped 26% [earning Henri Termeer the coveted Nance Trophy for worst biotech CEO of 2009 by TheStreet.com’s Adam Feuerstein].  Some of the reasons for this poor performance include concerns over generic competition and pipeline progress – ironically some of the same issues that have plagued big pharma.

Accordingly, the relative underperformance of large capitalization biotechnology companies in 2009 masked the fact that many smaller, innovative companies performed well, with 20 of the 125 companies comprising the NASDAQ Biotech Index producing triple-digit returns during the period.  In fact, two biotechnology companies were among the largest percentage gainers in the NASDAQ Composite with their staggering quadruple-digit returns: Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (VNDA) +2,150% and Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (HGSI) +1,342%.  See Table 1 for a list of the top ten gainers from the NASDAQ Biotech Index in 2009.

Table 1. Top ten gainers from NASDAQ Biotech Index (NBI) in 2009

Oncology: Prostate Cancer Spotlight

Driven by positive Phase 3 results from Dendreon Corporation (DNDN) regarding its prostate cancer vaccine study, investors gravitated towards biotechnology companies working in the field of prostate cancer treatment as noted in our May 2009 article.  This enthusiasm only increased when Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) announced in May 2009 that it would acquire Cougar Biotechnology, Inc., a development stage company with an oral prostate cancer treatment being studied in two Phase 3 clinical trials, for approximately $1 billion. 

While not a member of either major biotechnology index, shares of Oncogenex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (OGXI) started the year around $3.00 and ended above $22 for a 643% return.  Oncogenex is developing OGX-011, which is designed to inhibit the production of clusterin, a protein that is associated with cancer treatment resistance, and has completed Phase 2 clinical trials in prostate, lung and breast cancer.  OGX-011 received Fast Track designation from the FDA for the treatment of progressive metastatic prostate cancer in combination with docetaxel.  Shares of Oncogenex had traded higher than $42 in August 2009, but the stock price declined following a license agreement with Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (TEVA) for OGX-011 that apparently did not meet investor’s expectations.

Not all biotechnology companies working in the area of prostate cancer were as fortunate as Dendreon, Cougar, and Oncogenex.  Shares of GTx, Inc. (GTXI) were the second largest industry decliner for 2009 due to a complete response letter from the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] that cited clinical deficiencies regarding the company’s New Drug Application [NDA] for toremifene 80 mg to reduce fractures in men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy.  See Table 2 for a list of the top ten decliners from the NASDAQ Biotech Index in 2009.

Shareholder Activist Wins

In view of past major coups with MedImmune and ImClone, in August 2009 we reviewed Carl Icahn’s biotechnology holdings as reported in SEC filings and identified three companies that significantly underperformed the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index over the past five years, but with recent successful shareholder activist outcomes that could positively impact future performance.  In particular, we noted that Alexander Denner, who has served as Managing Director of entities affiliated with Carl Icahn and as a director of ImClone, had recently been elected as a director at each company.

During 2009, those three companies, Biogen Idec, Inc. (BIIB), Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AMLN), and Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ENZN) produced positive returns of 12%, 31% and 81%, respectively.  While Biogen Idec underperformed the sector, it notched the highest return among large capitalization biotechnology companies.

In other shareholder activist news, holders of Vanda Pharmaceuticals (VNDA) are likely pleased that the company’s Board of Directors spurned a request by Tang Capital Partners, LP to liquidate the company in February 2009.  Shares of Vanda were up 2,150% for the year [see Table 1] following FDA approval in May 2009 to market the company’s Fanapt™ [iloperidone], a novel antipsychotic for the acute treatment of adult patients with schizophrenia, and a subsequent marketing agreement for the product with Novartis AG (NVS).

CNS: Developments for Parkinson’s Disease

Vanda Pharmaceuticals wasn’t the only company working in the area of central nervous system [CNS] disorders to make news.  Shares of Impax Laboratories, Inc. (IPXL), which were trading around $7.50 at the time we published our August 2009 article titled “Treating Parkinson’s Disease: Investment Opportunities and Challenges,” continued to reach new 52-week highs and ended up 172% for the year [see Table 1].  Impax recently initiated the second of two Phase 3 studies designed to support marketing approval of its IPX066 product candidate for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.  IPX066 is an investigational extended release carbidopa-levodopa product intended to rapidly achieve and then sustain effective blood concentrations of levodopa, potentially improving clinical symptom management.

Gastrointestinal Disease: 3 Hits, 3 Misses

First, the good:

Both Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (SLXP) and Santarus, Inc. (SNTS) appear in the list of top ten biotechnology gainers for 2009 with triple-digit returns due to favorable regulatory progress reported during the year [see Table 1].  In September, Salix announced the successful outcome of two Phase 3 trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Xifaxan® [rifaximin] for the treatment of non-constipation irritable bowel syndrome.  Salix is planning an NDA submission for the first half of 2010.  In December, Santarus announced that the FDA approved the company’s New Drug Application [NDA] for its prescription tablet product for all of the indications being sought, including for the treatment of heartburn and other symptoms associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease. 

While not a member of either major biotechnology index, shares of Soligenix, Inc. (SNGX.OB) increased 317% during 2009.  In January, the company reached agreement with the FDA on the design of a confirmatory, pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating its lead product orBec® for the treatment of acute gastrointestinal Graft-versus-Host Disease [GVHD].  The following month, Soligenix announced a potential $30 million North American partnership agreement with Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals for orBec and in October 2009 initiated patient enrollment in the confirmatory Phase 3 trial that is expected to complete with clinical data available in the first half of 2011.

Next, the bad:

As discussed in our December 2009 article “Graft Versus Host Disease: Failures and Future Opportunities,” Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. (OSIR) recently reported preliminary results from two Phase 3 trials evaluating its Prochymal product candidate for the treatment of acute GVHD.  Unfortunately, neither trial reached its primary endpoint, sending shares from $14 to a 52-week low of $5.35 by November 2009, earning the company a spot in the top ten decliners for the year [see Table 2]. 

The other two casualties working in the area of gastrointestinal disease and appearing in the top ten decliners for 2009 are:

• Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PGNX), which announced in October 2009 that the company regained worldwide rights to Relistor® [methylnaltrexone bromide] for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation from Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.  Global net sales of Relistor for the third quarter of 2009 were a mere $3.3 million, as compared to $3.2 million in sales for the previous quarter.
• In the absence of any negative clinical or regulatory news, NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NPSP) stated it remains on track to reach full patient enrollment before the end of the first quarter of 2010 for a confirmatory Phase 3 trial with Gattex™ (teduglutide), the company’s proprietary analog of naturally occurring human glucagon-like peptide 2 [GLP-2], for the treatment of short bowel syndrome [SBS].  NPS believes that positive results from the trial, expected to complete in October 2010 according to ClinicalTrials.gov, will enable the company to seek U.S. marketing approval for Gattex.

Table 2. Top ten decliners from NASDAQ Biotech Index (NBI) in 2009

2010 Outlook

The capital markets remain turbulent and there may be casualties along the way among undercapitalized companies, but many of the biotechnology industry’s fundamentals, such as the number of products in clinical trials, new product approvals, profitable biotech companies and industry mergers & acquisitions remain favorable for 2010. Similar to 2009, small capitalization companies with clinical or regulatory catalysts should continue to outperform their larger industry peers in the year ahead.

What is your outlook for the biotechnology industry in 2010?  Take a moment to complete our survey, which is only ten questions long and will take just minutes to complete.  The results of this important survey along with our industry outlook will be communicated in early 2010 through a future article.  Take the survey now by clicking here.

Last week, Genentech (DNA) and Biogen Idec (BIIB) reported that a Phase 3 study of Rituxan® failed to meet the primary endpoint as a treatment for patients with a form of lupus. This was the second setback for patients with lupus in less than a month, as La Jolla Pharmaceutical (LJPC) recently announced that the Independent Data Monitoring Board for its Riquent® Phase 3 study in lupus completed the first interim efficacy analysis and determined that continuing the study is futile.

Also during the week, Human Genome Sciences (HGSI) announced that Albuferon® met its primary endpoint of non-inferiority to peginterferon alfa-2a in a Phase 3 clinical trial for patients with chronic hepatitis C. Unfortunately, investors apparently had higher expectations for the study and sent the company’s stock to an all-time low on the news. Recent clinical setbacks in the area of lupus also likely weighed on Human Genome Sciences. The company is investigating LymphoStat-B®, a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the biological activity of B-lymphocyte stimulator, in two Phase 3 superiority trials for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Human Genome Sciences expects to have the first Phase 3 data available for LymphoStat-B® by mid-2009, and all Phase 3 data to support regulatory filings available in fall 2009.

Putting disappointing clinical updates aside, last week’s big news came from Roche (ROG.VX) and Genentech, which announced a merger agreement under which Roche will acquire the outstanding publicly held interest in Genentech for a total payment of approximately $47 billion in cash. This positive development fueled speculation as to where investors might redeploy their proceeds (see related article by Thomson Reuters).

Seeking biotechnology companies of comparable size and liquidity, investors will likely gravitate towards the larger companies among the 135 members of the NBI that we divided into the following three groups using data obtained through Gridstone Research:

Tier 1: market capitalization in excess of $10 billion (6 companies)
Tier 2: market capitalization greater than $2 billion but less than $10 billion (12 companies)
Tier 3: market capitalization of at least $1 billion but less than $2 billion (12 companies)

The 30 companies in these three groups had a collective market capitalization of approximately $240 billion at the end of last week. Assuming that investors reinvested the entire $47 billion in cash they receive for their Genentech shares into these groups, it would represent approximately 20 percent of the current value. Of course, it is unlikely that the entire $47 billion will return to the biotechnology sector, as index funds and other Genentech holders may reallocate their proceeds to other industries. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of funds will be reinvested within the biotechnology sector.

Tier 1 consists of Amgen (AMGN), Biogen Idec (BIIB), Celgene (CELG), Genzyme General (GENZ), Gilead Sciences (GILD), and Teva Pharma (TEVA). Not surprisingly, this group performed exceptionally well during the past week. Year-to-date laggard Celgene (CELG) benefited the most and advanced 17 percent during the period.

Tier 1 Graph

Copyright ©1999-2008 by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond Washington. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Tier 2 consists of Shire plc (SHPGY), Life Technologies (LIFE), Vertex Pharmaceuticals (VRTX), Cephalon (CEPH), Illumina (ILMN), Myriad Genetics (MYGN), Qiagen N.V. (QGEN), Alexion Pharmaceuticals (ALXN), Warner Chilcott (WCRX), Gen-Probe (GPRO), OSI Pharmaceuticals (OSIP), and Perrigo (PRGO). In addition to possibly benefiting from the reallocation of Genentech proceeds, Tier 2 includes some of the sector’s best performing stocks year-to-date, including Myriad Genetics, Life Technologies and Illumina.

Tier 2 Graph (partial list)

Copyright ©1999-2008 by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond Washington. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Tier 3 consists of Endo Pharmaceuticals (ENDP), Techne (TECH), ONYX Pharmaceuticals (ONXX), Sepracor (SEPR), United Therapeutics (UTHR), Amylin Pharmaceuticals (AMLN), CV Therapeutics (CVTX), Isis Pharmaceuticals (ISIS), Auxilium Pharmaceuticals (AUXL), BioMarin Pharmaceutical (BMRN), Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (REGN), and Acorda Therapeutics (ACOR). Tier 3 represents a number of companies that have been rumored as takeover targets themselves, including ONYX Pharmaceuticals, Amylin Pharmaceuticals, and Acorda Therapeutics. Just last week, Gilead Sciences and CV Therapeutics announced the signing of a definitive agreement pursuant to which Gilead will acquire CV Therapeutics for $20.00 per share, which topped an unsolicited proposal from Astellas Pharma Inc. to acquire CV Therapeutics.

Tier 3 Graph (partial list)

Copyright ©1999-2008 by StockCharts.com Inc., Redmond Washington. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

The brisk pace of merger and acquisition activity along with licensing transactions is central to the bullish outlook for biotechnology proposed at the start of 2009. However, new product approvals and positive clinical trial results are an equally important theme. As such, investors will likely be closely monitoring near-term events, such as results from the first Phase 3 trial of Human Genome Sciences’ LymphoStat-B® for lupus in mid-2009, AMAG Pharmaceuticals (AMAG) obtaining approval for Feraheme™ to treat anemia, final results from Dendreon’s (DNDN) Phase 3 trial of Provenge® for prostate cancer expected in April, and results from Genentech’s Phase 3 study of Avastin® plus chemotherapy in adjuvant colon cancer expected in mid-2009.