adssx
#1
Good article: ‘The bar has risen’: China’s biotech gains push US companies to adapt
And a related one: Will all our drugs come from China?
Hopefully, this will push Western companies to do better, faster, and cheaper!
6 Likes
Bicep
#2
Everybody has tailed off since about 2021 it looks like.
Interesting. I see the quantity, which is easier to show on graphs. But what I wonder about is quality, which is hard to quantify. I don’t know how standards compare between countries, especially China. Look at the Covid-19 vaccines developed and approved in China and Russia - the quality compared to the ones developed in the West, has been variable, to say the least. Clearly they’re putting some serious capital investment and effort prioritization, so unquestionably they’ll get some results. However I wouldn’t panic quite yet - we’ve seen this movie before with high end integrated processors, where there’s been a similar concerted push. They’re ramping up and will get increasingly competitive, but it takes time, and the experience gap with the West will likely remain for some time yet - now is the time for the West to push forward as well. But I see only good here. A rising tide lifts all boats, I welcome any and all to the effort of health and longevity improvements, which will benefit all of humanity regardless of place of residence.
1 Like
It’s not possible for the western to win in this competition with China. Communist has no moral code on clinic trials, doctors are free to harvest organs and do unethical clinical trials, also huge population without privacy restrictions can offer great databases for Chinese researches, which western researchers can never have.
China doesn’t play on the same rule to the western, the mindset of Chinese would be to defeat western and dominant the technology by all means, even foul play, to restore the past glory and pay back the insult given by past western colonial imperialism.
I had purchased a few electronics made in China with special proprietary tech spec NOT compatible to current network compression algorithm, only work in China.
How Chinese pharmaceutical compatible to current market standard or how Chinese leads in the competition then alter the overall world pharmaceutical tradition, can potentially risky to all, think about COVID-19 as the virus leaked from China WuHan lab…
adssx
#5
The quality is in the second article:
Western big pharma companies are on a buying spree of Chinese assets.
See also: Big Pharma’s bet on China biotech a rare trade bright spot amid tensions 2024
So far this year, seven major pharma companies have licensed or acquired molecules for new drugs originating from China, spending a total of at least $3.15 billion in upfront cash and equity, according to DealForma. Others are boosting their on-the-ground presence in the hope of finding diamonds in the rough.
Every major drugmaker’s head of R&D has been to China at least once in the last year, according to an October report from Stifel Financial Corp.’s investment banking unit. AbbVie Inc. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. have hosted dedicated partnering days in Shanghai to meet with local companies, while companies like Roche Holding AG, Bayer AG and Eli Lilly & Co. have opened or will open incubators to build relationships with early-stage startups. At a recent, widely watched trade expo, Pfizer Inc. announced it will invest $1 billion in China over the next five years, in part to work with local companies.
China’s growing prominence as a place to look for first-in-class or best-in-class assets at a reasonable price is causing a fundamental shift in the global dealmaking landscape.
It’s a sea change in a relatively short period, says Tim Opler, a managing director at Stifel.
“Ten years ago, Chinese companies were developing generic knockoffs and there was concern they didn’t even have the right ingredients. You might buy Chinese aspirin and it might not be aspirin,” Opler said. “Fast-forward 10 years, they’re developing really good molecules that are competitive with what the best US biotechs are doing.”
Big Pharma Rushes to China for Deal Prospecting Despite Regulatory Uncertainty 2025
In the final weeks of 2024, pharmaceutical companies struck a handful of deals with China-based biotechs, with antibody-drug conjugates high on the wish list. The flurry of activity reflects a potential gold mine for Western companies as China’s data become more trustworthy, experts told BioSpace.
“China becomes a place for deal hunters to look for a ‘me too better’ version of the target,” Jefferies’ analysts said.
Jefferies does not see this rush stopping anytime soon, but said future deals may focus more on next-generation versions or assets that can bring costs down in the U.S. market. This is particularly likely in obesity, where numerous deals and companies are emerging from China, such as Kailera. The company’s most advanced asset so far is the Phase II GLP-1/GIP recepter dual agonist KAI-9531, an injectable already being tested in the country.
“It’s in China’s best interest to have standards that are what the FDA is looking for,” Axelsen said, “because that makes their developed drugs more valuable.”
2 Likes
For all of these whichever jurisdiction there is a question of diminishing returns. On the other hand I think there are a number of tools that can be used which are not properly understood, but I don’t think they fit into the standard type of trial (particularly as synergies are potentially really important).
adssx
#7
5 Likes
AnUser
#9
I don’t think it matters, it’s not a zero sum game. If Chinese companies develop and study pharmaceuticals, they can just be licensed off-shore.
I found this interview on the optispan podcast quite illuminating. Matt Kaebelein talks to a crypto entrepreneur about funding longevity research.
Now, I’m not an advocate of crypto, but I must say, this is a very interesting model, with extremely fast financing and a totally new approach to molecule testing. It’s early days, but this looks very interesting.
It might change the dynamic vs China too, insofar as crypto is experiencing crackdown over there. Maybe an opening for the West in this race?
Crypto-powered Science: How blockchain and DAOs are reimagining longevity research
AnUser
#11
Why is that important? It’s basically like saying “A psuedonymous PayPal that allow for equity will create extremely fast financing”, okay, it’ll have an effect, but nothing ground breaking.
I disagree. It takes years to obtain financing for worthy projects at universities and fighting internal politics. Crypto can do it in weeks, Government agencies like the NIH, either deny grants to interesting research or put them on starvation budgets. Crypto raises billions lickety split, and can allocate them to high risk high return projects, moonshots and dedicated deep dives. Private industry (pharma) has no interest in longevity per se, only in narrowly targeted research to generate drugs to treat discrete diseases likely to gain FDA approval. Crypto financing has no such constraints and can focus specifically on addressing aging. There are worthy molecules nobody will put money into exploring applications of, because they can’t be commercialized through IP patents (MK’s complaint about rapamycin, among others). Crypto can step in where pharma won’t. And so on. The resources are enormous and can dwarf goverment budgets, and this is not theoretical potential, but already an emerging reality of a sustainable research and financing model.
Based on your remarks I would guess that you have not actually listened to the podcast. I get it, life is short, podcasts are long, hate to sacrifice time for poor returns. My thoughts too… and I am here to tell you, in this case it’s time well spent. But the choice is yours, of course.
AnUser
#13
Let’s cut to the chase for this point:
(1) How much have been raised in the longevity field via crypto that wasn’t funding traditional projects?
(2) How does this look over time on a graph?
Podcasts and videos are too persuasive with even slant evidence, the format might be pretty rotten unless the people are just reciting facts and statistics and explaining the limitations of what was cited.
I believe the numbers referenced were a few hundred thousand (U.S. dollars) already disbursed (for an autophagy project in the UK), 400 million, and 2 billion on tap - understand that this is a brand new venture, the infrastructure of which is just getting set up, with the first steps late 2024, I think there was a trial run with urolithin a still ongoing in fruitflies with mice next, and the next twenty or so molecules to be pushed out for financing by the end of this week. So, for a project this new, it’s moving with the speed of light.
But look, if you want to make up your mind, listen to the podcast, don’t rely on my perceptions. I freely admit, that I shied away from anything with “crypto” in the concept, and being allergic to hype, “blockchain” gives me the hives, but I found this presentation pretty persuasive.
Do I have concerns? Yes. First, QC - you are talking about the market determining what to fund. The market can have the wisdom of the crowd, yes, but also dumb money bubbles. It’s an experiment. I approve, if for no other reason, than that the current models of research financing has fundamental limitations, and any innovation with the ability to disrupt this space is more than welcome, and the potential is tremendous.
The podcast left me feeling enlightened in an area I’m skeptical of (crypto model). I felt it worth my time. Up to you.
AnUser
#15
$400k is a long way from billions.
These guys are talking about $400 million already in the bank, with the $2 billion pencilled out as a natural market evolution just within current parameters. But look, talk is cheap, and the proof is in the pudding. At least give it enough time to either develop the speed of ramp up, or collapse. No sense in shooting at the thing already with the first baby steps. Time - and not much rime - will be a put up or shut up denouement, by the end of this year at the very latest… for a build out of such a consequential infrastructure, that is frankly warp speed - how many decades has it taken for the current pharma and university models to become established? Let’s be reasonable. Wait and see.
adssx
#17
6 Likes
Yes, and you know what, with all the caveats wrt. “China” and “India”, I think this is a good thing. The Western model of pharma development is ossified and too rigid with huge costs vs benefits. This is the context in which I think innovations as those outlined in the Optispan Matt Kaeberlein I posted above are going to be key, because they address exactly the points enumerated above: cutting through red tape, much greater resources, moving fast, taking risks, lower cost approaches.
It is my hope, that China and India are on a trajectory that will see them eventually solve some of their systemic problems with fraud, low quality and low innovation - hopefully it’s a matter of time as those systems mature. Meanwhile the West needs a kick in the pants, and hopefully this will be it. We’ll see.
3 Likes
adssx
#19
Yes it’s amazing, we’ll get better drugs, faster and for cheaper and it’ll force the West to improve. Thanks China! Hopefully India will follow, per Stifel:
It’s not just China. Competition for biomolecule development is broadly globalizing. For example, India is now getting into the game in a serious way. Glenmark’s Ichnos sub reported first-in-class data for a triple TC engager at ASH in December. We were wowed by the data. Zydus of India is now out ahead of Novartis and Roche in the NLRP3 space. They are planning to run a pivotal study in 2025 for their NLRP3 and they also have a PPAR that looks just as good as Cymabay’s molecule.
1 Like
adssx
#20
Here Comes the Booming Chinese Biotech Sector
Yet another area where China is on the rise.
You’ve heard about Chinese EVs. You’ve heard about Chinese batteries and solar panels. And recently you learned that China is near the cutting edge of AI research. Here’s another category: biotech. In 2019, the Chinese share of molecules licensed to Big Pharma companies was 0%. In 2024, it’s now 31%. On this episode we speak with Tim Opler, a biotech industry investment banker at Stifel. He explains how this industry has taken off in such a short period of time. Among the factors he cites: a generation of Chinese research scientists working in the US who hit a ceiling in terms of promotion and thus went back home to start companies. It’s also far cheaper to run clinical trials in China, due to the structure of the healthcare system. We also talk about the broad history of the pharmaceutical industry, how it’s evolved, and what impact, if any, AI will have on drug discovery.
7 Likes
