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.”

The similarities don’t end there, as both ipilimumab and sipuleucel-T have reignited enthusiasm for the field of active immunotherapy.  Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to highlight some of the other parallels between these two innovative agents.

Both Studied in Prostate Cancer

While ipilimumab was recently approved for the treatment of melanoma, the product has also been extensively studied in prostate cancer.  In fact, there are eight clinical studies with ipilimumab in prostate cancer according to ClinicalTrials.gov, including five that are currently active or recruiting.

One particular prostate cancer study made headlines in June 2009 when investigators at the Mayo Clinic reported in the online research magazine Discovery’s Edge that the combination of a single dose of ipilimumab [3 mg/kg] with androgen ablation therapy dramatically reduced the tumor size in two patients, making surgery possible for both patients whose prostate cancer had been previously considered inoperable. The controversial results from a handful of patients were met with skepticism and the complete Phase 2 results with 108 patients with advanced prostate cancer were later reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO] 2010 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium [abstract #168].  According to the ASCO abstract, patients treated with androgen ablation either alone or in combination with ipilimumab demonstrated a greater than 97% decline in testosterone levels, underscoring the possibility that the tumor reductions in a few patients could have been associated with androgen ablation.  Patients treated with ipilimumab, however, were more likely to have undetectable prostate specific antigen [PSA] by three months [55% vs. 38%].

A Phase 3 trial with ipilimumab following radiation therapy in patients with CRPC that have received prior treatment with docetaxel is ongoing [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00861614].

Two is Better than One

As the first two active immunotherapies approved for the treatment of cancer, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the products studied in combination in prostate cancer – especially in view of the fact that ipilimumab has already been studied in this disease.  Sipuleucel-T may help build an effective immune response to kill tumor cells, while ipilimumab may stimulate the immune system through T-cell activation and proliferation and stop tumor cells from growing.  Accordingly, giving vaccine therapy together with ipilimumab may be an effective treatment for prostate cancer.  Interestingly, the only such combination study listed on ClinicalTrials.gov relates to a completed Phase 1 trial with ipilimumab in combination with Bavarian Nordic’s (BAVA.CO) Prostvac®, an “off-the-shelf” therapeutic cancer vaccine moving into pivotal Phase 3 clinical development [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00124670].

Pricing Controversy

Both Dendreon’s sipuleucel-T and Bristol-Myers’ ipilimumab have been criticized as overly expensive new therapies.

The cost of sipuleucel-T is approximately $93,000 for a course of treatment, which consists of three infusions at two-week intervals.  In view of the fact that the product has been demonstrated to extend median survival by 4.1 months, this translates into an average cost of $23,000 per month of added survival.

In comparison, Taxotere® [docetaxel] by Sanofi-aventis (SNY) is indicated for the treatment of CRPC and is administered every 3 weeks for 10 cycles.  Assuming an average monthly cost of $4,000 for docetaxel [source: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 1076], this is an approximate total cost of $40,000 per patient.  In the pivotal TAX 327 study, median survival for prostate cancer patients receiving docetaxel was 18.9 months versus 16.5 months in the control arm, which results in an average cost of $16,666 per month of added survival or about 28% less than sipuleucel-T.  Updated survival analysis of the TAX 327 study demonstrates a 2.9-month survival advantage, which lowers the average cost to $13,793 per month of added survival or about 40% less than sipuleucel-T.  Unlike sipuleucel-T, however, treating common adverse reactions with docetaxel, such as infections, neutropenia, anemia, nausea, diarrhea, and others, increases the total cost of therapy – and more importantly negatively impacts the patient’s quality of life.  As such, the pricing of sipuleucel-T doesn’t appear completely out of line.

According to the prescribing information, ipilimumab is administered intravenously [3 mg/kg] over 90 minutes every 3 weeks for a total of four doses.  Bristol-Myers is pricing each dose at $30,000, which translates into a total cost of $120,000 for a full course of therapy.  In the pivotal ‘020 study, median survival for melanoma patients receiving ipilimumab was 10.1 months versus 6.4 months in the control arm.  The average cost per month of added survival is approximately $32,432, which is 41% higher than the only other active immunotherapy for cancer, sipuleucel-T.

However, on March 21, 2011, Bristol-Myers announced that the ‘024 study [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00324155] met its primary endpoint of overall survival.  Minimal details were provided, but an abstract of the ‘024 data is expected to be submitted to ASCO for potential presentation at the Annual Meeting in June 2011.  The ‘024 study is in patients with untreated Stage III [unresectable] or IV melanoma receiving dacarbazine plus 10 mg/kg ipilimumab versus dacarbazine with placebo.  If the median survival for patients in the ipilimumab arm is 5.2 months or greater than the placebo arm [versus 3.7 month difference in the ‘020 study], then the pricing of ipilimumab per month of added survival would be comparable to sipuleucel-T.

Prostate and Melanoma Highly Competitive

Melanoma and prostate cancer are the two most crowded clinical development segments within the active immunotherapy field.  As such, both ipilimumab and sipuleucel-T may face competition from other active immunotherapies in the near future.  In addition, the products may soon encounter small molecule rivals.

For example, Johnson & Johnson’s (JNJ) abiraterone acetate significantly improved overall survival for patients with metastatic advanced prostate cancer.  Based on the positive Phase 3 results, the company has filed marketing applications for abiraterone acetate with regulatory authorities worldwide for the treatment of metastatic advanced prostate cancer that has developed resistance to conventional hormonal therapies. Not far behind, Medivation, Inc. (MDVN) is evaluating its MDV3100 product candidate in collaboration with Astellas Pharma, Inc. (ALPMY.PK).  The Phase 3 AFFIRM trial with MDV3100 has completed enrollment of men with advanced prostate cancer who were previously treated with docetaxel-based chemotherapy and the Phase 3 PREVAIL trial with MDV3100 is currently enrolling men who have not yet received chemotherapy

In addition, Plexxikon, Inc. [being acquired by Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited] and co-development partner Roche Holding (ROG.VX) are advancing PLX4032, an oral drug candidate that targets the oncogenic BRAF mutation present in about half of melanoma cancers and about eight percent of all solid tumors.  Interim data from a Phase 3 controlled study of PLX4032 in previously untreated metastatic melanoma patients with the BRAF mutation met both co-primary endpoints.  Patients treated with PLX4032 had improved overall survival (OS) and improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to patients treated with dacarbazine, the current standard of care.  A New Drug Application [NDA] for PLX4032 is expected in 2011.

Some new agents might actually be synergistic with active immunotherapies instead of representing potential competition.  This was a central theme at the recent Cancer Immunotherapy Consortium’s 2011 Scientific Colloquium titled “Schedule and Dose for Combination Therapy.”

Summary

Both ipilimumab and sipuleucel-T represent important clinical advances for the field of active immunotherapy in oncology and for patients with melanoma and prostate cancer, respectively.  Further, with nearly 50 clinical programs currently underway, including nearly a dozen that are in pivotal Phase 3 development, we expect to see five active cancer immunotherapies approved by 2015.  Beyond these clinical accomplishments, however, industry observers will be closely monitoring the commercial success of these innovative agents in view of the product pricing, supply constraints, and competitive dynamics identified to date.

Table 1. Old Versus New Paradigm in Biotechnology Collaborations

In addition, the negative considerations from large pharmaceutical partnerships are often overlooked, which begs the question: is it better to partner, or go alone?  To help address the topic, this article focuses on the oncology segment of the life science industry – one of the most popular therapeutic areas for partnering and merger & acquisition [M&A] activity.

Luck Vs Skill

Prior to addressing the question of whether or not a small biotechnology company should collaborate with a larger pharmaceutical organization, we solicited investor views regarding the process of corporate partnering.  Some of the feedback indicates there is a lack of transparency.

“As an investor, partnering activity is the most opaque part of our companies’ business,” said David Sable, portfolio manager, Special Situations Life Sciences Fund.  “Every small biotech CEO tries to create an image of limitless interest on the part of big pharma in each of the company’s projects, a dynamic that will inevitably result in a value-maximizing transaction.  Many management teams deliver on these promises; in retrospect, however, at least as many seem to have parked their molecule in the front yard with a ‘For Sale’ sign and hoped for the best.  While we can validate the importance of a molecular pathway, double-check market size predictions, run our own statistics and reality-check pricing assumptions, we have no way to identify talent in business development.”

Left at the Altar

One of the most important negative considerations for biotechnology companies looking to partner is that large pharmaceutical companies often shift resources and the focus of their pipeline development candidates over time, which may put their collaborators at risk.  Although sometimes done for strategic reasons rather than due to new clinical insight, the sudden departure of a large pharmaceutical partner can reflect poorly on an otherwise promising product candidate.

For example, Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. (CLDX) announced in September 2010 that the company would regain full worldwide rights to develop and commercialize rindopepimut [CDX-110] from Pfizer, Inc. (PFE).  The companies had entered into a global development and commercialization agreement in April 2008 for rindopepimut, an experimental therapeutic cancer vaccine that targets the tumor-specific molecule epidermal growth factor receptor variant III in patients with glioblastoma multiforme.  Pfizer informed Celldex that the rindopepimut program was no longer a strategic priority of Pfizer and terminated the agreement despite the fact that the product candidate met or exceeded all pre-determined safety and efficacy objectives across three clinical studies.  Shares of Celldex, which traded as high as $9.49 during 2010, reached a 52-week low of $2.91 on the news.

More recently, Transgene (TNG.PA) announced on February 22, 2011, that Roche Holding (ROG.VX) terminated their 2007 agreement under which Roche had been granted exclusive global development and commercialization rights to TG4001/RG3484, a therapeutic vaccine candidate currently in a 200 patient Phase IIb study to treat notably high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] lesions [CIN2/3] caused by human papilloma virus [HPV] infection.  While Transgene stated that Roche’s decision to terminate the license agreement was based on strategic reasons and wasn’t data driven, the company’s shares reached a 52-week low on the news.

Hopes and Dreams Vs Revenue Streams

Another potential negative is that by partnering a product candidate, the “hope and dream” multiple of a potential partnership or acquisition may be replaced by the realities of a “revenue stream,” such as milestone payments and future product royalties.  By discounting the economics of a partnership deal for certain risk factors, investors can assign a net present value to the company that may be quite different than the speculative valuation in the absence of a partnership.  Representing a unique opportunity to review the effect of partnering on market capitalization, three separate deals were announced for late-stage product candidates aimed at treating prostate cancer during 2009, while two companies have remained independent [see Table 2].

As the first transaction announced that year, Johnson & Johnson’s (JNJ) acquisition of Cougar Biotechnology for nearly $1 billion in cash in May 2009 initially looked attractive.  However, following approval of Provenge® [sipuleucel-T] in April 2010, the market capitalization of Dendreon Corporation (DNDN) exceeded $7 billion, which demonstrates the potential benefit of remaining independent or retaining worldwide rights.  In contrast, more than a year after partnering their late-stage programs, the market valuations of two other companies, Medivation, Inc. (MDVN) and OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (OGXI), are $605 million and $150 million, respectively.

Using Dendreon’s valuation as an example, it isn’t surprising that Bavarian Nordic A/S (BAVA.CO) announced earlier today that the company is reviewing alternate options to maximize value for shareholders and fund the pivotal Phase 3 trial of its “off-the-shelf” therapeutic vaccine product candidate Prostvac® on its own.  Keeping its options open, however, Bavarian Nordic is exploring opportunities to pursue independent development in parallel with continuing partnership discussions.

Table 2. Late-stage Prostate Cancer Programs

A Means to an End

The biggest argument against partnering is the fact that some of the most successful biotechnology companies to date are those that have commercialized their own products, such as Amgen, Inc. (AMGN), Celgene Corporation (CELG), and several others.

“Celgene is a unique example of success by taking a slightly different approach,” said Charles Duncan, managing director and senior biotech analyst at JMP Securities LLC.  “The company built a pipeline and worldwide infrastructure for Revlimid® [lenalidomide] that was funded and supported through its early sales of Thalomid® [thalidomide].”

“We viewed partnering our lead product as a critical strategic decision that would shape the company and significantly impact our vision,” said Sol J. Barer, Ph.D., Executive Chairman of Celgene Corporation.  “We felt that our pursuing the development of Revlimid worldwide alone was the best option consistent with our vision a of becoming a major global biopharmaceutical company over the next few years.  We clearly recognized the short versus long term trade-offs in the decision; nevertheless, our belief in the product and in our ability to manage the product globally was important in our decision not to partner.”

Some companies have also partnered a specific program in certain geographies or disease settings and use the validation and resulting economics to help advance their own pipeline – sometimes even in competitive areas.  For example, Amgen originally developed Epogen® [epoetin alfa], which the company commercialized as a treatment for anemia in dialysis patients and partnered non-dialysis rights with Johnson & Johnson [sold as Procrit®].  Amgen later developed and commercialized Aranesp® [darbepoetin alfa], an erythropoiesis stimulating protein with a longer half-life and increased biologic activity that was not partnered.

Similarly, Oncothyreon, Inc. (ONTY) has granted a license to Merck KGaA of Darmstadt, Germany for the clinical development, manufacturing, and marketing of Stimuvax®.  Oncothyreon is eligible for cash payments based on the achievement of certain process transfer events, regulatory submissions in first and second cancer indications, regulatory approval for first and second cancer indications, and for sales milestones.  Oncothyreon will also receive a royalty based on net sales.  If successful in the clinic, Stimuvax could also help validate another Oncothyreon product candidate, ONT-10, which is a completely synthetic MUC1-based liposomal glycolipopeptide cancer vaccine that could compete with Stimuvax.  Merck KGaA has a right of first negotiation with respect to ONT-10.

Geographically Undesirable

Although selective encumbered assets can still attract buyers, partnering a product candidate in certain geographies with one large pharmaceutical company may preclude an acquisition by another that is only interested in worldwide rights or control of key markets.  On the other hand, some partnerships can later lead to an acquisition – a strategy employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY) on more than one occasion.

For example, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Medarex, Inc. formed a worldwide collaboration in 2004 valued at more than $530 million to develop and commercialize Yervoy® [ipilimumab, MDX-010], which was in Phase III clinical development at the time for the treatment of metastatic melanoma and multiple Phase II clinical trials in other oncology indications.  In 2009, Bristol-Myers Squibb acquired Medarex for $16.00 per share, a 90% premium over the prior day’s closing price of $8.40 per share, for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $2.4 billion.

What started as a lawsuit for infringement of its patents related to fusion protein technology in 2006, ZymoGenetics, Inc. signed a deal with Bristol-Myers Squibb in 2009 worth more than $1.1 billion for PEG-Interferon lambda, a novel type 3 interferon in Phase Ib development for the treatment of Hepatitis C, and its related development program.  The following year, Bristol-Myers Squibb acquired ZymoGenetics for $9.75 per share in cash [an 84% premium to the prior day close] in a transaction valued at approximately $885 million.

While ultimately thwarted by Eli Lilly & Co.’s (LLY) superior offer in October 2008, Bristol-Myers also attempted to acquire its partner ImClone Systems.  Back in September 2001, Bristol-Myers had entered into an agreement with ImClone to co-develop and co-promote Erbitux® [cetuximab, IMC-C225] in the United States, Canada and Japan.

All that Glitters is not Gold

Maintaining worldwide rights and commercializing a product without a partner doesn’t necessarily translate into a lofty market valuation.  Several companies have struggled to commercialize oncology products on their own.

Allos Therapeutics, Inc. (ALTH) developed Folotyn® [pralatrexate injection], a folate analogue metabolic inhibitor, and began commercializing the product in the U.S. for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma [PTCL] in October 2009.  Since the product’s launch, Folotyn sales have been below Wall Street analyst’s expectations and shares of Allos recently reached a 52-week low of $2.64.

Despite an inauspicious launch in the U.S., some analysts believe that Allos may finally be executing on a regional strategy with the recent filing of a Marketing Authorisation Application for European approval and the potential for a partner in Asia as highlighted during the company’s recent quarterly teleconference with investors.

“If Allos gets traction with an ex-U.S. approval and partnership, investor sentiment will most certainly improve as this will provide some external validation on the viability of a regulatory path and market opportunity in PTCL, despite it being a rare disease and there being emerging potential competition from Celgene’s Istodax® [romidepsin],” said Charles Duncan.  “At this point, all but the most patient, value-oriented investors have extricated themselves from the Allos story due to what we believe to be a lack of confidence in senior management, and having another company to shoulder the risk ex-U.S. will provide a much-needed boost to the capabilities and capital needed to profitably market Folotyn.  Perhaps this too could be an example where a collaboration discussion turns into an acquisition, although we anticipate that should such a scenario materialize, it would likely involve contingent-value rights [CVR’s] given the uninspiring early revenue trajectory.”

Summary

Looking ahead, the trade-off between equity dilution and asset dilution represents an important crossroad that many late-stage biotechnology companies will face in the near future [see Table 3 for a select list].  While one size doesn’t fit all, the fact that Dendreon has achieved the largest market valuation of any company in the late-stage prostate cancer segment of the market by commercializing its product without a partner helps support the notion that going alone may provide the highest value to stakeholders.  Such a strategy requires that the company can access resources and capital to develop and launch its product globally.  If not, a selective or global partnership may be the next best options – provided the terms are attractive and that there is a remaining pipeline to be leveraged in the future.  In the end, whether a company proceeds alone or with a partner, there is an attractive landscape of motivated buyers for late-stage and marketed products that may ultimately lead to M&A.

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

Table 3. Select Companies with Phase III Oncology Programs Not Yet Partnered

• Sector’s defensive characteristics and impact on future economic growth
• Highest number of annual new product approvals since 2004
• Record number of products in clinical trials and annual industry research and development [R&D] investment
• Improving access to capital
• Brisk pace of industry consolidation and licensing transactions
• Many small- and mid-capitalization companies remain undervalued

With 2010 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 38% in 2010, while the broader NASDAQ Biotech Index (NBI) advanced 15%.  Performance of the NASDAQ Biotech Index was in line with the Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDU), S&P 500 (SPX), and NASDAQ Composite (COMP), which were up 11%, 13%, and 17%, respectively.

Why the huge discrepancy in returns between the two major biotechnology indices?  Unlike the equal-weighted NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index, the NASDAQ Biotech Index is calculated under a modified capitalization-weighted methodology, taking into account the total market value 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 2010, most of the large capitalization biotechnology companies [greater than $10 billion] underperformed the median return of 11% for the 130 companies in the NASDAQ Biotech Index.  For example, Celgene Corporation (CELG) was up 6%, Cephalon, Inc. (CEPH) was down 1%, Amgen, Inc. (AMGN) was down 3%, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (TEVA) was down 7%, and Gilead Sciences, Inc. (GILD) declined by 16%.  Bucking the trend of underperformance among large capitalization biotechnology names were Shire plc (SHPGY), along with Genzyme Corporation (GENZ) and Biogen Idec, Inc. (BIIB), both of which were targeted by shareholder activist Carl Icahn [see our August 2009 article “Three Recent Biotechnology Activist Wins by Carl Icahn”].

Accordingly, the relative underperformance of large capitalization biotechnology companies in 2010 masked the fact that many smaller, innovative companies performed well, as evidenced by the fact that 30 of the 130 companies comprising the NASDAQ Biotech Index produced greater than 50% returns during the period.  This performance is consistent with our thesis that small and mid-capitalization companies with positive clinical or regulatory catalysts would continue to outperform their larger industry peers in 2010.  See Table 1 for a list of the top ten gainers from the NASDAQ Biotech Index in 2010.

Noticeably absent from the list of 2010 winners, however, were the staggering quadruple-digit returns witnessed in 2009 [Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (VNDA) +2,150% and Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (HGSI) +1,342%].

Table 1. Top ten gainers from NASDAQ Biotech Index (NBI) in 2010

Last Year’s Laggards Become 2010 Winners

After declining 22% in 2009, shares of Akorn, Inc. (AKRX), a niche generic pharmaceutical company, staged an impressive comeback by becoming the largest percentage gainer within the NASDAQ Biotech Index during 2010.  In November 2010, the company announced that core business revenue is projected in the range of $79.0 million to $80.0 million in 2010, a 76%-79% increase over 2009, and up from the company’s prior guidance range of $71.0-$75.0 million.

In another dramatic reversal of fortune, three of the top ten gainers from the NASDAQ Biotech Index in 2010 made the list of top ten decliners in the prior year.  Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (QCOR), Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (IDIX), and NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NPSP) rebounded sharply in 2010, each posting triple-digit returns due in part to the following:

• Questcor’s performance was largely due to strong revenue growth from its H.P. Acthar® Gel (repository corticotropin injection), which is indicated for the treatment of acute exacerbations of multiple sclerosis in adults, as monotherapy for the treatment of infantile spasms in infants and children under 2 years of age, and for the treatment of several other diseases and disorders.
• Despite news in September 2010 that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] placed two of the company’s HCV drug candidates on clinical hold, Idenix Pharmaceuticals benefited from its drug candidate for the treatment of HIV/AIDS advancing into a Phase 2b trial by its corporate partner, ViiV Healthcare.
• Interest in NPS Pharmaceuticals can be attributed to the fact that in early 2011 the company expects to report top-line results from a Phase 3 study of teduglutide, a proprietary analog of GLP-2, in patients with short bowel syndrome who are chronically dependent on parenteral nutrition.

Losers Brought to You by the Letter “A”

Affymax, Inc. (AFFY), AMAG Pharma (AMAG), Arena Pharma (ARNA), Alexza Pharma (ALXA), and Alnylam Pharma (ALNY) were among the top ten decliners from the NASDAQ Biotech Index in 2010 [see Table 2].

Affymax, Inc. (AFFY), which hopes that its investigational anemia drug peginesatide could ultimately compete with Amgen Inc.’s Aranesp® [darbepoetin alfa], posted the largest percentage decline within the NASDAQ Biotech Index for 2010.  Top-line results from the Phase 3 clinical program released in June 2010 showed that the frequency of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, unstable angina, and arrhythmia was higher in non-dialysis patients taking peginesatide than those taking Aranesp, which sent shares of Affymax plummeting.   In November 2010, Affymax and partner Takeda confirmed their goal of submitting a new drug application [NDA] for peginesatide for the treatment of anemia in chronic renal failure patients on dialysis in the second quarter of 2011.

AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AMAG) launched Feraheme® (ferumoxytol) to treat iron deficiency anemia in July 2009, but anemic sales earned the company a spot in the top ten decliners of 2010.  Net product revenues from Feraheme were $15.1 million in the third quarter of 2010, well below the $500 million to $1 billion in annual sales originally projected by Wall Street analysts.  See our February 2010 article “Iron Safety Hits AMAG Pharmaceuticals.”

Table 2. Top ten decliners from NASDAQ Biotech Index (NBI) in 2010

Our Top Ten Articles

In the spirit of analyzing statistics from 2010, we reviewed our website traffic to identify the top ten articles from the past year.  The list below is ranked in descending order, starting with the most popular article:

1)              Cancer vaccine therapies: failures and future opportunities (Apr ‘10)

2)              Investment opportunities with five frontline therapies for AML (Sep ‘10)

3)              Cancer immunotherapy to take center stage at ASCO (Jun ‘10)

4)              Monoclonal antibody companies command premiums (Jul ‘10)

5)              Stem cell competition heating up (Aug ‘10)

6)              Buyout buzz at ASH hematology confab preview (Dec ‘09)

7)              Cyclin dependent cancer confab preview (Apr ‘10)

8)              Drug development spotlight: the mTOR’s new clothes (Nov ‘10)

9)              Past pitfalls and potential promise for pancreatic cancer (Oct ‘10)

10)            Five key factors weighing on Dendreon (Jul ‘10)

Interesting to note that despite popularity among readers, companies focusing on cancer immunotherapy, hematological malignancies, monoclonal antibodies, or stem cells did not make the list of top ten gainers from the NASDAQ Biotech Index in 2010.

2011 Outlook

Most of the drivers supporting our favorable outlook for the biotechnology industry remain intact for 2011, 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 2011.

The key exception relates to the number of FDA drug approvals, which declined in 2010 and is more than 50% below the high of 56 new approvals in 1996 despite the fact that legislation passed in 2008 gave the FDA more money and resources.  There is no discounting the negative impact of clinical and regulatory setbacks on the psyche of biotechnology investors, as evidenced by the greater than 10% decline in the NASDAQ Biotech Index in late February 2009 following a spate of high profile disappointments.

With Opening Day less than a month away, it seems only fitting to reference one of the most quoted personalities of our time to describe our analysis of the biotechnology sector in 2010.  In this article, we review our favorable outlook for the industry, draw comparisons with the prior year, and introduce the results of our recent “Life Sciences Industry Outlook” survey that targeted industry executives, investors, analysts, and members of the media.

Bullish Outlook

Our favorable outlook for the biotechnology industry in 2010, which builds upon many of the same catalysts we proposed for 2009, is based on the following key drivers:

• Sector’s defensive characteristics and impact on future economic growth
• Highest number of annual new product approvals since 2004
• 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 small and mid-capitalization companies remain undervalued

In fact, several of these themes were reinforced by the results of our industry survey.

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 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.

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 October 2009 article “Innovative New Medicines are Key to Economic Growth,” a permanent one percent 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

In a repeat of last year, 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 2009 was the highest since 2004.  Of course, cynics will rightfully call attention to the modest year-over-year increase [25 in 2009 versus 24 in 2008] and that recent performance is still more than 50% below the high of 56 new approvals in 1996.

However, we believe that viewing the number of FDA approvals in the context of new risk evaluation and mitigation strategies [REMS] that were introduced in 2008 and internal resource constraints that have plagued the agency provides optimism going forward.  While legislation passed in 2008 gave the FDA more money and resources, hiring and training hundreds of new employees takes time.  With that process well underway, combined with increased familiarity of the REMS program, we believe the drug approval process should improve going forward.

In terms of therapeutic areas, oncology represented one out of five [20%] approvals by CDER in 2009 according to a recent publication [Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 9, 89-92, February 2010].  Not surprisingly, oncology was our highest ranked survey response with regard to attracting investment and/or business development activity in 2010.  See Table 1 below.

Table 1. In terms of raising capital and/or business development activity, which key therapeutic area do you expect to attract the most interest/visibility during 2010?

* Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding

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 drugs currently in development.  In the US alone, there are 633 biotechnology medicines being developed, including 254 medicines for cancer, 162 for infectious diseases, 59 for autoimmune diseases, 34 for HIV/AIDS and related conditions, 25 for cardiovascular disease, and 19 for diabetes and related conditions.

Annual research and development expenditures by PhRMA member companies also reached a record $50.3 billion in 2008, more than tripling the $15.2 billion level of investment in 1995.

Access to Capital

In 2010, companies at all stages of development will try to attract investors and the competition will be fierce.  However, in terms of access to capital for life sciences companies, our survey indicated that more than 46% of respondents expect favorable conditions in 2010, with modest improvement over 2009.  Another 46% of respondents indicated that they expect access to capital to be about the same as 2009.  Only 4% of respondents expected access to capital to improve markedly with initial public offerings [IPO] possible.

In 2009, venture capital investment in biotechnology declined by 19%, both in dollars and deals, from the prior year according to the MoneyTree™ Report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association, based on data from Thomson Reuters.  However, biotechnology was the single largest investment sector for 2009 with $3.5 billion going into 406 deals.

In terms of initial public offerings [IPOs], only three biotechnology companies successfully tested the public markets in 2009.  In 2010, two IPO’s have already been completed, albeit both below the expected offering price, and several others are in queue, including Prometheus Laboratories, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Trius Therapeutics, Aldagen, Alimera Science, and Tengion.  See Table 2 for recent biotechnology IPO performance.

Table 2. Recent Biotechnology IPO Performance

In terms of public financings, several companies have already completed offerings in 2010, including Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. (FOLD), BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BPAX), Cell Therapeutics, Inc. (CTIC), Chelsea Therapeutics International, Inc. (CHTP), Cleveland Biolabs, Inc. (CBLI), Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (CYCC), Derma Sciences, Inc. (DSCI), EntreMed, Inc. (ENMD), InterMune, Inc. (ITMN), Palatin Technologies, Inc. (PTN),and XOMA Ltd. (XOMA).

Improving access to capital could lead to an acceleration of merger and acquisition activity and licensing deals, as large pharmaceutical companies begin to lose their leverage and company valuations start increasing.

Consolidation

More than 82% of survey responders expected merger and acquisition activity to accelerate in 2010 compared with 2009.  In view of two recent deals, the paucity of merger and acquisition activity and decline in both the quantity and value of licensing & partnering transactions announced during the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference in 2010 appears to have been the pause that refreshes [see “Biotech Deal Activity Declines…The Pause that Refreshes?”].

For example, on February 23, 2010, Cephalon, Inc. (CEPH) exercised its option to acquire Ception Therapeutics, Inc. for $250 million in view of positive Phase 2 data from a clinical study in adults with eosinophilic asthma.  In January 2009, Cephalon paid Ception $100 million upfront for the option.

On March 1, 2010, Astellas Pharma, Inc. offered to acquire all outstanding shares of common stock of OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (OSIP) for $52.00 per share in cash, or an aggregate of approximately $3.5 billion on a fully diluted basis.  The offer represented more than a 40% premium on the closing price of OSI Pharmaceuticals’ common stock of $37.02 per share on February 26, 2010, and shares have subsequently traded above $57 on expectations for a higher bid.

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 activity to remain brisk.

Small Versus Large

As highlighted in our “Biotech’s 2009 Stealth Small Cap Rally” article, small capitalization biotechnology companies were among the best performers of 2009.  The relative underperformance of many 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.  Vanda Pharmaceuticals (VNDA), Human Genome Sciences (HGIS), and Targacept, Inc. (TRGT) led the way, with stock prices up 2,150%, 1,342%, and 487%, respectively.

Similar to 2009, we expect that small and mid-capitalization companies with positive clinical or regulatory catalysts will continue to outperform their larger industry peers in 2010.

Beware the Ides of March

In our February 2009 article “Chink in the Biotechnology Armor,” we cited the spate of high profile clinical setbacks and regulatory delays during the month as the reason for the sector’s precipitous decline.  The NASDAQ Biotech Index, which traded as high as 772 during the first week of February, traded as low as 605 by the first week of March – losing more than 21% of its value during the 30-day period.

In February and March 2010, there have also been a significant number of clinical and regulatory setbacks.  Consider the following:

• AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AMAG) – Purported safety concerns regarding Feraheme® [ferumoxytol], the company’s marketed product for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in adult patients with chronic kidney disease, kicked off a 27% decline in shares of AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  The stock, which traded as high as $45.61 on February 3, 2010, subsequently traded as low as $33.29 despite assurances from the company that the rate of serious hypersensitivity reactions related to Feraheme are consistent with the product’s label.
• Cell Therapeutics, Inc. (CTIC) – On February 8, 2010, the FDA released its briefing documents for the company’s lymphoma drug, pixantrone, in advance of an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee [ODAC] meeting originally scheduled for February 10, 2010.  Shares of Cell Therapeutics, Inc., which closed at $1.06 the prior week, traded as low as $0.53 that day.  Among other issues, the FDA raised concerns about pixantrone’s efficacy in view of the fact that the randomized study was stopped at less than 50% of its planned patient target because of poor accrual.  The ODAC meeting was subsequently rescheduled for March 22, 2010.
• Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ISIS) – On February 10, 2010, the company and its partner, Genzyme Corporation (GENZ), announced results from a Phase 3 study of mipomersen in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia [heFH].  While the trial met its primary endpoint with a highly statistically significant 28 percent reduction in LDL-cholesterol after 26 weeks of treatment, the results raised safety concerns and apparently fell short of Wall Street’s expectations.  Shares of Isis Pharmaceuticals, which closed above $11 the day before the results were released, traded as low as $8.85 the next day.
• XenoPort, Inc. (XNPT) – On February 17, 2010, XenoPort, Inc. and its partner GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) received a Complete Response letter from the FDA, delaying approval for Horizant™ [gabapentin enacarbil] Extended-Release Tablets, an investigational non-dopaminergic treatment for moderate-to-severe primary Restless Legs Syndrome.   Shares of XenoPort, Inc., which closed at $19.60 the day before the news, hit an all-time low of $6.39 the next day.
• Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. (NVLT.OB) – On February 24, 2010, the company announced that the primary endpoint of improvement in overall survival was not met in a pivotal Phase 3 trial for advanced non-small cell lung cancer [NSCLC] with its lead product, NOV-002, in combination with first-line chemotherapy.  Shares of Novelos Therapeutics, Inc., which closed at $1.65 the day before the results were released, traded as low as $0.28 the next day.
• Adventrix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ANX) – On March 1, 2010, the company announced that it received a refuse to file letter from the FDA regarding its New Drug Application for ANX-530 [vinorelbine injectable emulsion].  In the letter, the FDA indicated that the data included in the initial submission from the intended commercial manufacturing site was insufficient to support a commercially-viable expiration dating period.  Shares of Adventrix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. which closed at $0.29 the prior week, traded as low as $0.16 that day.
• Medivation, Inc. (MDVN) – On March 3, 2010, the company and its partner, Pfizer, Inc. (PFE), announced that the investigational drug dimebon [latrepirdine] unexpectedly failed in a Phase 3 trial in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.  Shares of Medivation, Inc., which closed above $40 the day before the results were released, traded as low as $12.55 the next day.

Helping to offset the negative impact of these setbacks, 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 impact on the index.  Further, several companies experiencing clinical or regulatory setbacks were not included in the NASDAQ Biotech Index.

In addition, recent merger and acquisition activity may also help mask the effects of the aforementioned clinical and regulatory setbacks.  For example, the NASDAQ Biotech Index closed up 2.7% the day that Astellas Pharma, Inc. offered to acquire OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Upcoming Catalysts

When it comes to raising visibility and capital, 40% of survey respondents cited general risk aversion in the financial markets as the single greatest challenge facing most life sciences companies in 2010.   Another 28.8% of respondents cited the average market capitalization of life sciences companies being too small and/or lack of liquidity as the single greatest challenge.

In view of the aforementioned clinical and regulatory setbacks, investors will be closely monitoring the following events, as there is no discounting the negative impact of continued clinical and regulatory setbacks on biotechnology investor’s appetite for risk:

• MannKind Corporation (MKND) – In January 2010, the company announced that the FDA would be unable to complete its review of Afrezza™ before the mid-January Prescription Drug User Fee Act [PDUFA] date in order to complete an inspection of a manufacturing-related facility belonging to one of the company’s suppliers.  Alfrezza is a novel, ultra rapid acting mealtime insulin therapy under review for use in adult patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus for the treatment of hyperglycemia.  The company has not been given a new PDUFA date by the FDA.
• InterMune, Inc. (ITMN) – A Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee [PADAC] meeting is scheduled for March 9, 2010, to review the NDA for pirfenidone, the company’s investigational drug candidate for the treatment of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis [IPF] to reduce decline in lung function.
• Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AMLN), Eli Lilly and Company (LLY), and Alkermes, Inc. (ALKS) – Following a weather delay, the FDA has set a new PDUFA action date of March 12, 2010, for its review of the NDA for exenatide once weekly.  Exenatide is being developed in collaboration with Eli Lilly and based on technology from Alkermes, Inc.
•  Cell Therapeutics, Inc. – The rescheduled ODAC meeting for pixantrone takes place on March 22, 2010.
• Delcath Systems, Inc. (DCTH) – On February 4, 2010, the company announced that sufficient events have been reached to allow data analysis to begin on its Phase 3 trial for a novel drug delivery platform to deliver ultra-high doses of anti-cancer drugs to the liver while preventing these high doses of drug from entering the patient’s bloodstream.  The 92 patient, randomized, multi-center, Phase 3 trial used the drug melphalan to treat patients with metastatic melanoma in the liver.  Assuming a successful trial endpoint, the company expects to file a new drug application [NDA] with the FDA in April 2010.
• Dendreon Corporation (DNDN) – A Biologics License Application for Provenge® [sipuleucel-T] for the treatment of men with metastatic, androgen-independent prostate cancer, has been assigned a PDUFA date of May 1, 2010.

Conclusion

While the capital markets remain turbulent, 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.   Combine these positive attributes with yet to be seen benefits from decoding the human genome, an improvement or stabilization in the capital markets, greater resources for the FDA and a novel blending of technology, chemistry and biology and many of the necessary ingredients for The Biotechnology Revolution remain intact.  Or, as Yogi Berra simply said, “You can observe a lot by watching.”