It’s day three of the 40th annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference. We’ve already heard about Amgen’s biosimilar ambitions and Gilead Sciences’ long-term HIV strategy, but there’s still plenty of action to come. Be sure to check in throughout the day to get the skinny on all the biggest happenings from the virtual conference.
To look back at Fierce Pharma’s coverage from Day 2, click here. For Day 1, click here. And check out Fierce Biotech’s Day 2 coverage here.
UPDATED: Wednesday, Jan .12 at 9 a.m. ET
Ipsen is targeting €3 billion in dealmaking firepower by 2024, Craig Marks, the company’s vice president of investor relations said during JPM. The number could grow further as the French pharma is in the process of a strategic review of its consumer health unit, which could reportedly be valued at $500 million in the case of a potential sale.
Buying or in-licensing external innovations is a key strategy of Ipsen. The company is Exelixis’ ex-U.S. partner for Cabometyx, which expects phase 3 readout for a combination with Roche’s PD-L1 inhibitor Tecentriq in second-line non-small cell lung cancer in the second half of 2022.
Last year, Ipsen completed seven transactions across oncology, rare disease and neuroscience, including paying €120 million upfront for global rights to Genfit’s phase 3 asset elafibranor for primary biliary cholangitis.
Moving forward, Ipsen will continue to look for deals across the development stages, including for programs with unblinded phase 3 data or even marketed products, in those three therapeutic areas, Marks said. The company is also looking to beef up its U.S. presence through dealmaking.
UPDATED: Wednesday, Jan. 12 at 8:15 a.m. ET
Could Eli Lilly divide upcoming diabetes hopeful tirzepatide into multiple brands? It’s possible, Lilly CEO David Ricks hinted at the 2022 J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference. The move wouldn’t be unprecedented: Lilly’s Danish rival Novo Nordisk already splits its injectable GLP-1 med semaglutide into two separate brands: Ozempic for diabetes and Wegovy for obesity. “We’re having those discussions,” Ricks said when asked about a two-brand strategy, adding that he sees pros and cons “on all sides.”
The strategy made sense in the past because there was “a pretty different market for those obesity treatments than diabetes,” Ricks said. Previously, payers have been more willing to pay for diabetes drugs at a price point they wouldn’t approach for obesity. Ricks, for his part, sees payers becoming “much more interested in treating obesity,” which in turn could help lower the risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, joint problems and a plethora of other complications. Story
