Biogen, Inc.

Johnson & Johnson’s gene therapy for a genetic disease that leads to vision loss called X-linked retinitis pigmentosa (XLRP) failed a pivotal trial, according to an update to a J&J healthcare provider website. At one year, the gene therapy, called bota-vec, didn’t meet its primary endpoint in the Phase 3 LUMEOS study, though results were “directionally supportive,” according to the website , which appears to have been updated Friday. The primary endpoint measured the change in patients’ ability to navigate through a vision-guided mobility assessment maze. “We’re working to understand the totality of the data, inclusive of the clinical relevance of improvement shown on the majority of secondary endpoints, as we evaluate strategic options and next steps,” a J&J spokesperson told Endpoints News via email. The Phase 3 study fail comes as large biopharma companies are pulling back from AAV gene therapy work. Vertex became the latest company to stop research on AAV gene therapy, Endpoints reported Friday. And Pfizer, Takeda, Roche and Biogen have previously cut back on AAV gene therapy research or clinical programs. J&J acquired the gene therapy, known as bota-vec, from MeiraGTx for $65 million upfront in 2023 after previously making licensing deals for three eye disease gene therapies, including bota-vec, from the smaller biotech. The gene therapy delivers functional copies of the RPGR gene via viral packages called adeno-associated viruses, or AAVs. That gene is mutated in people with X-linked retinitis pigmentosa, a disease that primarily impacts boys and men. The Phase 3 study had enrolled 95 participants and split them into three groups: low-dose gene therapy, high-dose gene therapy, or deferred treatment — a group of patients who served as the comparator arm and were meant to receive the gene therapy after the primary endpoint measurement. A Biogen gene therapy for XLRP failed a mid-stage study in 2021. Beacon Therapeutics is studying a gene therapy for the rare eye disease, and last year raised $170 million. Editor’s note: This story was updated to include a statement from a J&J spokesperson.

Deerfield Management is back with its third healthcare venture fund, this time securing more than $600 million to create new drug development outfits, medical technology startups and adjacent computational software companies. That’s five years after its $840 million venture fund was announced in 2020. Deerfield Healthcare Innovations Fund III will help support the firm’s in-house drug discovery and medical technology teams in New York City at the 12-story Cure campus. Its sprawling ecosystem encompasses 29 research institution collaborations, including a 10-year deal with the University of Chicago announced earlier this year. The fund adds to the pool of capital available to the life sciences community, which is sorely in need of bright spots after a multiyear downturn. Other investment firms have disclosed new funds this year, including Aditum Bio , Curie.Bio and a16z’s new fund backed by Eli Lilly . Deerfield has about 25 drugs in development and is currently invested in about 150 companies, managing partner James Flynn told Endpoints News . Recently departed Sanofi CSO Frank Nestle is CEO of Deerfield Discovery and Development, which is the internal team that works to take experimental drugs and devices to key inflection points within about three or four years before packaging them into new companies, Flynn said. Overall, Deerfield has about $15 billion in assets under management, Flynn said. That includes three buckets: a public fund, a fund dedicated to private investing with an emphasis on structured finance, and then the Healthcare Innovations unit, which focuses on launching burgeoning companies, the managing partner added. The firm’s portfolio includes companies like Nuvalent and Neomorph. Nuvalent started as an idea out of Harvard University to create drugs for treatment-resistant cancers. Deerfield seeded the company and then wholly contributed to a $50 million Series A in 2021. It quickly went public via an IPO later that year and today is a $5.5 billion drug developer, by market capitalization. However, the industry is currently weathering one of the longest dry spells for biotech initial public offerings in Flynn’s three-plus-decade career in healthcare investing. That’s pressuring earlier-stage companies, especially private startups looking to pull together syndicates. Neomorph is an example of one of those companies that is trying to drum up investor support but is finding it difficult, even with broad pipelines and multiple industry partnerships. The fledgling company was born out of Deerfield’s work with Dana-Farber and their collaboration on the Center for Protein Degradation. The San Diego biotech has signed pharma tie-ups with AbbVie, Biogen and Novo Nordisk in the past 16 months, but it’s “hard to do a syndicated round right now,” Flynn said. The firm has also invested in gene therapy outfits, like Chicago-area Jaguar Gene Therapy, which recently entered the clinic with an investigational medicine for a genetic form of autism. But Deerfield is taking a “very careful” approach to the field right now because it’s been “exceptionally difficult to get gene therapy companies funded,” Flynn said. “I do think the new FDA is whispering encouraging things relative to products targeting smaller markets, and they seem to be very open to surrogates, even novel surrogates,” Flynn said. “We do have some rare disease companies right now that are getting that kind of feedback about their products.” Deerfield’s fund will also place an emphasis on software companies in the healthcare field. The firm will about double its software team this year, from 15 people to more than 30, Flynn said. It includes a computational chemistry group that has helped form companies like Excelsior Sciences, which is a mixture of medical technology, software and a drug discovery platform that has been in development for nearly three years, he said.

编者按：本文来自动脉网，作者牟磊；赛柏蓝授权转载，编辑yuki01“退货率”40%？2024年，中国创新药BD交易市场格外火热。有研究报告显示，2024年我国药企共完成94笔license-out交易，总交易金额高达519亿美元，同比增长26%；其中首付款41亿美元，同比上涨16%。图1：2018-2024年中国药企licence-out交易数量及首付款（数据来源：医药魔方）进入2025年，这一势头仍在延续。据悉，刚刚过去的第一季度已出现超20笔涉中国药企全球授权的交易，包括罗氏豪掷超10亿美元淘金信达生物，乐普生物就一款临床前ADC与ArriVent达成一笔超12亿美元的重磅合作等。在专利悬崖压力下，海外大药企当前对中国创新药空前热情，并计划进一步“扫货”。这意味着，BD交易有望在今年再创新高。一片热闹之中，不少国内药企已经尝到了甜头。比如映恩生物成立仅六年，license-out已卖出超60亿美元，推动其在近期成功登陆港交所，并以113%的涨幅创下18A企业历史最高纪录；还有百利天恒，2024年实现扭亏为盈，净利大幅增长575%来到37.08亿元，这离不开一笔史诗级BD——2023年年底，BMS就BL-B01D1与百利天恒达成了总交易额84亿美元的天价协议，光首付款就高达8亿美元。但与此同时，BD失败的消息同时也在传来。据不完全统计，截至2025年4月20日，在2020年已完成的62起license-out交易中，目前有25起已明确终止合作，“退货率”为40%。2021年和2022年的“退货率”当前也达到20%左右，且有不少都是在今年宣布“分手”，比如诺诚健华的奥布替尼以及石药集团的ADC项目EO-3021等。经历过去两年疯狂的BD浪潮之后，国产创新药也来到了“清算”阶段。图2：2020-2024年中国药企licence-out“退货”率（截至2025.04）02“分手”，很难体面进入2025年，国产创新药在BD层面的纠纷就一直不断。2月，诺和诺德指控亨利医药涉嫌欺诈；3月，三叶草收到全球疫苗免疫联盟（GAVI）书面通知要求单方面终止预购协议并退还预付款；此外，石药与Elevation Oncology及诺诚健华与渤健等也都因为“分手”出现了摩擦。有资深投资人表示，“毕竟是几亿甚至是高达几十亿美元的合作，所以一旦出现问题，想要和平解决并非易事。”到底是因为什么让双方最终走到“分手”这一步？首先是后续临床数据欠佳。以最近终止合作的石药与Elevation为例，2022年7月，Elevation以近12亿美元总价从石药引进Claudin18.2 ADC项目EO-3021/SYSA1801，但不到三年后，其美国临床一期数据显示ORR仅22.2%，与初期47.1%的数据差距较大，无法再向下推进。图3：全球CLDN18.2 ADC研发管线（数据截至2024.05）其次是管线竞争格局千变万化。2024年8月，默沙东宣布退回科伦博泰SKB315的权益，虽然该靶点备受期待，但截至2024年4月，全球已有4款Claudin18.2 ADC进入临床Ⅲ期，目前还处于Ⅱ期的SKB315显然不具备优势。有资深投资人表示，“对于一些同质化竞争激烈、临床进度滞后的靶点，海外药企宁可放弃首付款，也会果断选择终止合作。”此外还有买方自身战略调整。以Coherus为例，2024年1月其选择“退货”君实生物JS006，而这其中的导火索源于一次收购，2023年9月，Coherus收购了SurfaceOncology，在重新清点管线后，为将资源分配给管线中最有前途或最具竞争力的候选产品，Coherus认为，终止与君实生物在TIGIT项目上的合作符合利益最大化原则。事实上，在当前市场寒冬下，买方战略调整只会更加直接、迅速。最后是政策层面变化。以首个闯关FDA的国产PD-1信迪利单抗为例，这原本是一笔跨时代的BD交易，但在2022年12月还是无奈按下了暂停键，礼来将权利退回给信达生物。这其中的关键因素在于FDA拒绝信迪利单抗治疗非鳞状非小细胞肺癌的在美上市申请，认为该申请仅基于在中国进行的Ⅲ期临床，不足以在美国获得批准。但舆论却站在了另一边，因为信迪利单抗在美国获批之后，将比现有的同类产品价格降低40%。除此之外，行业风口的转移以及同质化竞争引发的内卷旋涡等，也会促使BD合作的泡沫破裂。不难发现，虽然“退货”的理由各有不同，但其实都可以归纳为一个关键因素，即生存焦虑。03“退货”后失去的不仅仅是钱据SRS ACQUIOM统计，2023年我国创新药里程碑达成率仅为22%，并且阶段越往后，达成率越低。图4：生物制药领域2023年年中到期的各研发阶段里程碑事件达成情况（图源：研发客）也就是说，绝大多数国产创新药最后只能拿到首付款，而首付款恰恰是最低的一笔收入。我国创新药License out长期遵循“高总金额、低首付”的叙事逻辑，所以首付款往往只占到总交易额的2%～5%左右，以石药集团Claudin 18.2 ADC为例，其与Elevation的合作首付款仅2700万美元，后续的11.68亿美元里程碑付款需要跨越三期临床试验到商业化阶段才能获得。对此，某药企负责人谈道，“作为‘甲方’的MNC，始终掌控着交易的核心话语权。再加上国内药企都渴望与MNC合作来换取现金流，所以在交易的过程中更容易妥协，因而造成首付款金额普遍较低。但这对于MNC来说，则是利好，因为当项目推进受阻时，其只需要付出极小的代价。”对国内药企而言，合作终止后，突然停止的管线以及市场信心崩盘等，同样是亟待收拾的残局。2023年9月，I-Mab发布公告，全面终止与艾伯维就CD47单抗在研药物——来佐利单抗(lemzoparlimab)等产品的合作协议。作为一家尚未有产品实现商业化的创新药企业，I-Mab的现金流严重依赖BD收入，但随着艾伯维退出，其只有通过砍管线来勉强度日。到2024年7月，I-Mab创新管线仅剩3条；2025年1月，其又宣布暂停开发CD73单抗Uliledlimab（尤莱利单抗）。某资深投资人谈道，“对一家‘硬实力’还不够强的biotech来说，一款产品在需要大量烧钱的阶段时，合作被终止就等于提前‘死亡’。一是突然没了现金流来源；二是其市场信心会严重受挫，后续只有在临床试验中披露非常好的数据时，才能够再度找到‘买方’，但这种可能性微乎其微。”究其原因，还是在于买卖双方风险承担不对等，于是，“NewCo”模式开始脱颖而出。据统计，2024年中国创新药企通过NewCo模式达成的交易金额已突破600亿元，较2023年增长54%。进入2025年，NewCo模式仍然保持高增长态势，光是在今年1月，就已经有5家公司通过NewCo模式成立。 图5：NewCo模式与License-out模式差异对比与传统license-out相比，NewCo模式最明显的差异在于买卖双方更深度绑定。因为它完全脱离主体，需要重新成立一家新的公司，并由买卖双方共同运营，这与license-out将所有决定权都交由MNC相比显然更加合理，其不仅可以规避风险，同时也可以将利益最大化和长期化。国内药企显然也意识到了这一点，以康诺亚为例，过去半年，其已经快速完成了3笔NewCo交易，潜在总金额11.4亿美元，占其总营收的比例高达95%。而能有如此表现，这与其战略选择不无关系：通过快速临床推进建立数据壁垒，以灵活授权交易获取生存资源，在风险可控的前提下探索国际化和平台化转型。04保持理性切忌将BD当做“救命稻草”不少行业人士推测，经过这两年汹涌的海外BD浪潮之后，未来几年国产创新药“退货”事件会愈发增多。这并非危言耸听，在欧美成熟市场，创新药交易的变换更迭屡见不鲜。据Cotellis数据库，FDA批准的新药中，80%的新药都经过一次或一次以上的交易。这也就是说，“被退货”其实才是大概率事件，这与创新药“九死一生”的定律十分契合。有资深投资人认为，“BD本身就像在‘赌石’，尤其是当前越来越多的交易开始聚焦在早期甚至超早期管线，这一特性会体现地更为明显。毕竟早期分子面临的变数非常多，一旦有任何风吹草动都有可能立马终止，即便是像辉瑞这类头部MNC，其临床成功率也不到5%。”在一片热闹之中，国内企业更要理性看待BD的本质。图6：中国创新药融资总金额与License-out交易总金额对比（数据来源：医药魔方）一方面，在退出与生存压力并重的市场环境之下，BD的确可以解燃眉之急，甚至是帮助一部分国内药企逆天改命。华泰研究报告显示，2024年1-11月我国创新药BD的首付款高达62.73亿美元，比企业直接融资金额的39.77亿美元多出近一倍，BD显然已经成为国产创新药最重要的现金流来源。但另一方面，能够被BD并不意味着完美结局，因为其不仅要面临被抄底的境遇，同时还要承受与MNC交易带来的巨大对赌压力。事实上，在无比考验长期主义的创新药领域，比起license out刚开始市场反应的急不可待的欣喜，随后的困难与挑战反倒更值得警惕，尤其是在“关税战”愈演愈烈的当下，海外交易的不确定性会更强。BD应该是一种权衡利弊后的选择，而不是“病急乱投医”的尝试。下一步，国产创新药想要成功出海，一定需要新东西证明自己，比如领先全球的研发进度，或对标全球更优的临床数据，再或大幅领先的全球销售额等。这实际上就是创新药亘古不变的市场逻辑，即过硬的临床数据以及巨大的商业化前景。只有这样，即使面临“退货”，也有再度出售的机会和底气。END内容沟通：郑瑶（13810174402）