Peter,
I agree that near-term mAb platform comps offer *easy identification* player-winner and they do bring nice return to investors (IMNX, IDPH, MEDI, PDLI,...).
However, two example from small molecules bios: CEPH and CELG show that potential is significant if candidates (in both case *second-rate* candidates) do make to market.
MLNM isn't exclusively mAb player, but their near term success is based at least by 90% on mAb type drugs. Also, it isn't surprise that MLNM is his first pick. It is core holding for many founds.
SNAP problems were too narrow focus on 5-HT receptors without alternative and now they pay price.
<<It would be very interesting to compare the current failure rates of mAb candidates with small drug candidates as they both advance, as well as their respective timing and costs of discovery. Of course such a direct comparison is very hard, partly because they are often addressing very different medical needs. >>
As you said so far medical targets/diseases are different. Also another very important point is chronic versus acute diseases stage. So, many small molecules failed because of the toxicity problems (concern about longer therapy duration), while mAb main problems are immunology nature after repeated usage.
ABGX, MEDX, PDLI, ALXN,...are good companies to invest, but balanced portfolio should include small molecules as well as new formulation-delivery platform bios (specially for proteins). Good analyst should know this and not be scared of the failure here and there. All IMO.
Miljenko |
