1 / 35

The Use of Non Profit, Industrial Consortia to Improve Pharmaceutical Industry R & D

The Use of Non Profit, Industrial Consortia to Improve Pharmaceutical Industry R & D “Lessons Learned” Wellcome Trust’s “Pre-Competitive Boundaries and Open Innovation in Drug Discovery and Development” Meeting Arthur Holden Founder, Chairman, and CEO. Introduction. Executive not scientist

zanthe
Download Presentation

The Use of Non Profit, Industrial Consortia to Improve Pharmaceutical Industry R & D

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Use of Non Profit, Industrial Consortia to Improve Pharmaceutical Industry R & D “Lessons Learned” Wellcome Trust’s “Pre-Competitive Boundaries and Open Innovation in Drug Discovery and Development” Meeting Arthur Holden Founder, Chairman, and CEO

  2. Introduction • Executive not scientist • 30 years of leadership experience – commercial & non-profit consortia; start-ups to mid size to large corporations • Baxter International (1984-1994) • Celsis International (1994-1998) • First Genetic Trust (2000-2006) • Illumina (2006-2007) • Formed and managed numerous large-scale consortia • The SNP Consortium, Ltd. (1999-2002) • The International SAE Consortium, Ltd. (2007- 2012) • Supported many others (MSC, HapMap, etc.)

  3. My Comments • Consortia Context • Model • TSC • SAEC • Some Lessons Learned 3

  4. Context

  5. “Pharmaceuticals” Context • Declining  Productivity & novel therapeutics • Increasing  Costs & Competition at “Market Entry” • “Block Buster” mentality softening • Scale  “Innovation” ??? • > Healthcare pricing pressures in all core markets  “pay for performance” paradigm of the future • End of “biotech risk subsidy” by the public markets etc, etc, etc. Increasing R & D productivity is critical. 5

  6. “R & D Sourcing Options” External Commercial Partnerships External Academic/Gov. Relationships In-house Operations R & D Consortia 6

  7. Industrial Biomedical Consortium“Generic Model” Skilled External Partners Industrial Members Clear Project/ Unifying Goal(s)/ Finite Timeframe Private Foundations/ Governmental Bodies Organized by Professional Management & Supported by Quality Processes 7

  8. Why Industrial Biomedical Consortia [IBCs]? • Fill a research gap, not being effectively filled by existing players [government or private] • Establish common/often risky “research platforms”, which help all researchers, while meeting specific industrial scientific requirements [pre-competitive/pro-competitive] • Establish industry standards • Reduce legal/IP barriers • Gain greater efficiency/effectiveness (scale) via pooling of talents and resources across industry

  9. Two Consortia The SNP Consortium 1999-2002 The SAE Consortium 2007-2012 9

  10. Common Characteristics (TSC/SAEC) • Defined project  finite timeframe • Non-Profit [501c3] > “public benefit orientation” • Open data access • No IP constraints • “Fixed, uniform” membership contributions • Designed for “leverage” and “time to result” • Collaboration with government (if advantageous to results) • Active (Committee) Participation and Investment by Members • “Governance by majority”  1 member/1 vote 10

  11. SNP Consortium -- Mission & Results “The SNP Consortium worked to advance the field of medicine and the development of genetic based diagnostics and therapeutics, through the creation of a high quality, dense genome wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) map, which is available to all parties at no cost.” • The Results: • Created a high quality HG SNP map for GWAS • Identify 300,000 SNPs [2.7M Common SNPs] • Map 150,000 SNPs [2.5M Common SNPs] • Broad, evenly spaced well annotated map within two years • Maximize public accessibility [~ 2.4M “unencumbered” SNPs] • Provided order and orientation data to assembled base WG project sequence and a significant “backbone” to the “HapMap” • $42M project, which exceeded expectations with $9M in budget favorability 11

  12. Drivers of the SNP Consortium • Industry standard SNP map  strong industry support • Universal access to base genomic/SNP data  public domain (IP considerations) • Facilitate pharmaco-genomics / genetics association, linkage & haplotyping studies • Economics: • Favorable economy of scale>>cost & risk sharing • Favorable cost to access high quality SNP datasets 12

  13. SNP@CSHL.org The SNP Consortium -DCC Summary Whitehead Sanger Wash U SNPs & Mapping Data SNPs SNPs SNPs Stanford DCC Mapping Data Reformatted SNPs & Maps Public dbSNP/EBI Consortium

  14. iSAEC -- Mission & Results “TheiSAEC will identify and validate DNA-variants useful in predicting the risk of drug induced serious adverse events.” • The Results (to date): • Initial GWAS for Drug Induced Serious Skin Rashidentifying marker(s) of potential significance • Assembled 2nd largest DILI cohort, merged with DILIN, completed initial GWAS identifying numerous significant marker(s) within/across drugs • Initial GWAS for Drug Induced PQT/TdP, merged with LeDueq Network, and identified marker(s) of potential significance • Completed four public data releases (clinical and GWAS data) with FDA • > 200 genetic markers associated with DILI and SSR in the public domain. • Favorable to budget in phase by $2M • Organized Phase 2 focused on “drug induced immunologic SAEs” associated with specific drugs and ethnicities, and forming novel SAE research channels vital to drug-specific SAE research. 14

  15. Drivers of the iSAEC • Need to improve new product (safety) productivity • Scale required to execute safety pharmacogenetics (top R & D management priority)  common markers in public domain • Need to standardize “SAE phenotypes” • Need to develop new and innovative methods to source cases and controls • Pooled technology assessment & risk (e.g. GWAS, WG sequencing) • FDA’s Industrial Advisory Board recommendation • $ resources required (poor public funding, given the health impacts) 15

  16. iSAEC Organization and Committees BOD Genotyping Core [Expression Analysis, Inc] Bioinformatics Core [Columbia University] CEO Scientific/Clinical SMC Legal/IP PR/ Comm. SAE [s] Data Anal. Research Collaborators [Academic & Commercial] Outsourced Service Suppliers [Legal & PR] 16

  17. iSAEC Web Site http://www.saeconsortium.org 17

  18. System admin Automated Data Access Assessment Data Use Agreement (Online/Hardcopy) iSAEC Data Access Process Request Form (online) Investigator Database

  19. Lessons Learned

  20. 10 Lessons Learned (Success Factors) 1. A clear unifying objective is a must. 2. Ensure the effort is both “pre-competitive” and “pro-competitive.” 3. Have a quality “draft” operating concept/plan before recruiting members [“one shot rule”]. 4. Establish a uniform membership requirements & development strategy with potential members. 5. Establish dedicated management early in the effort /don’t reinvent the wheel. 20

  21. 10 Success Factors cont. 6. Organize well defined committees with high quality, dedicated leaders 7. Outsource…outsource… outsource to the best external advisors/ investigators via “performance based” contracts 8. Generate results that exceed expectations 9. Make it fun and say “thank you” in meaningful ways, and…. 10. Know when to fold … begin with an end in mind! 21

  22. Learning #1 • Needed Science! • Easily Understood • Measurable • Focused vs General • All essential for member recruitment Have a Clear, Quality Objectivewhich Unifies the Membership […Full Genome Representative SNP Map… Safety related markers in the public domain] 22

  23. Learning #2 • Pre-Competitive (moving target) • Pro-Competitive (legal anti-trust perspective) • “Public Good” orientation (Tax/Charity status) • “Neutral data access policy”  “public” access to data The focus should be “pre-competitive” and “pro-competitive.” 23

  24. Learning #3 • Well organized “formation phase” with potential members • Scientific Plan [including necessary feasibility pilots] • Informatics Plan • Legal/IP Policies • Operating Plan/Performance Metrics/Contingencies • Budget [Proactive Risk Factor Mgnt] Develop a high-quality plan [before recruiting membership] 24

  25. Learning #4 • High Priority a Must! • Fixed Dues Structure (Annual Sensitivity [$1M down to <$.4M/year) • Do not vary membership tiers for industrial members • Non industrial members >> same $ terms for voting rights • Member Diversification has pros & cons Establish a Clear Membership Requirement & Development Strategy with potential members 25

  26. Learning #5 • Formation phase leadership • Members are investing in both the leader/project • Defining the Organization & Key Processes • Sourcing strategies • Pre-formation negotiations • “Closing” Membership • Communication is Key • Everything takes more Effort than Planned Establish dedicated management ASAP 26

  27. Learning #6 • SMC, Legal/IP, & Sub-committees key • Functional/Scientific Leadership is vital • Time Commitment is Greater than Expected • Senior Management Support of Manager Commitment Organize clear committees with high quality dedicated leaders 27

  28. Learning #7 • Increases expertise & skills • Leverage existing infra-structure/investments/skill • Performance based contracts  no grants! • Reduces project risk • Increases management flexibility • Careful assessment of the risks of doing the Consortium if Outsourcing is not an Option Outsource…outsource… outsource

  29. Learning #8 • Confirms membership investment  creates additional consortia opportunities • “Consortia fatigue” is real  major cause is poorly managed/under performing consortia • Winning together is fun … Generate results that exceed expectations! 29

  30. Learning #9 • Member help is essential • “Recognition starvation” is an epidemic • Everybody likes “special events” … but cost-effectiveness is vital in today’s environment Say “thank you” in meaningful ways and make the consortium a fun experience 30

  31. Learning #10 • Finite objectives within a fixed time frame  attractive to members • Consortia are strategic initiatives vs on-going concerns • New Consortia require different leadership • Effective BOD with the appropriate experience & seniority—Key! Don’t try to make a consortium into something it shouldn't be … know when to fold

  32. Final Caveats • Wellcome Trust involvement and funding  important validation to pharmcos • Involve stakeholder governmental bodies (TSC—NIH, iSAEC—FDA, EMEA, PMDA), without slowing the effort. • Limits to company leverage in these “leaner times” … funding a quality consortium is very hard these days (more freeloaders) • Vital that we learn from best efforts  take these into new, important consortia efforts to improve pharma productivity 32

  33. Acknowledgments SMC • Ann Daly & DILIGEN [Newcastle] • Mariam Molokhia & EUDRAGENE [London] • Matt Nelson [GSK] • Sally John [Pfizer] • Yufeng Shen [Columbia] • Itsik Pe’er [Columbia] • Aris Floratos [Columbia] • Mark Daly [Harvard/Broad] • David Goldstein [Duke] • Eric Lai [ex-GSK] • Donald Halbert [Abbott] • Joe Walker [D-S] • Nadine Cohen, Quingqin Serena Li, & Adrian Thomas [J&J] • Joanne Meyer & Steve Lewitzky [Novartis] • Klaus Lindpaintner & Karen Wilcock [Roche] • Steven Kovacs [Sanofi-Aventis] • Leonardo Sahelijo [Takeda] • Ted Burczynski & Maha Karnoub [Wyeth] • Robert O'Neill & Steve Wilson [FDA] • Andrea Califano [Columbia] • Allen Roses [Duke] • John Senior [FDA] Members • Brian Spear [Abbott] • Rick Scheyer [Daiichi Sankyo] • Lon Cardon [GSK] • Nadine Cohen [J&J] • Joanne Meyer [Novartis] • Aidan Power [Pfizer] • Klaus Lindpaintner [Roche] • Robert Dix [Sanofi-Aventis] • Leonardo Sahelijo [Takeda] • Michael Burczynski [Wyeth] • Janet Woodcock [FDA] • ShaAvhree Buckman [FDA] • Michael Dunn [Wellcome Trust]

  34. Appendix Slides

  35. Industrial ConsortiaSome Operational Tenants • Unifying objective  industry and public good [501 c 3] • Focused projects, with clear objectives & strong operational management • Strong “quality” and “time to result” orientation • Clear and uniform “membership requirements” • Extensive leverage of members’ skills via well organized sub-committees • Strive to collaborate with the best quality external advisors & investigators on an international basis • Public release of data  after appropriate IP management actions to ensure “openness”

More Related