1,721,027 research outputs found
Understanding Growth Pharma: a deep dive into the Actavis-Allergan merger
No full textSince the 2000s, the Pharmaceutical industry has been facing strong challenges: a constantly changing
and increasingly complex regulatory environment, an erosion of margins caused by governmental
pricing pressures and a decrease in Research & Development (R&D) productivity. This complex
environment has hurt the industry’s bottom line, forcing incumbents and new players to reconsider
their approach to the industry’s propelling engine: R&D.
Traditionally, innovation was driven by big pharmaceutical companies allocating an important
amount of their sales on R&D spending. By developing new drugs in-house, these companies were
managing to keep the control over these new drugs and treatments. These innovations were then
protected by patents lasting for a few decades. Once the protection had expired, other players could
enter the market by replicating the drug, driving its prices and hence, its profitability down by as
much as 80%.
In the last decades, the way innovation is being delivered has changed. Rather than big pharmaceutical
firms developing new products, small biotechnological start-ups are responsible for most of the new
discoveries. Their small size forces these players to specialize and focus all their R&D efforts on
specific therapeutic areas. Additionally, these start-ups can attract human capital and talent, but lack
financial muscle to exploit their findings. These conditions set the perfect framework for the increase
of M&A activity with far more potential targets to buy.
Building on this, a new business model has arisen in the industry: Growth Pharma. Among others, its
most important characteristic is the way R&D is conducted. Instead of vast investments to develop
drugs in-house, Growth Pharma companies tend to buy other biotech & pharma companies to acquire
their drug development pipeline. In this way, rather than dealing with the uncertainty of developing
new drugs and facing regulatory risks, these companies acquire other players with drugs in late-stage
of development.
The merger of Actavis and Allergan is considered as of 2015 the foremost example of Growth Pharma.
In addition to being the fourth largest deal of all times in the Pharmaceutical industry, its
characteristics make it a unique deal. The story started with an unsuccessful hostile takeover by
Valeant Pharmaceuticals, a company which embraced Growth Pharma under the leadership of Michael
Pearson. Some investors considered Valeant the new Berkshire Hathaway after it partnered in 2014
with Pershing Square, a New York based hedge fund, to do a hostile takeover over Allergan.
Actavis’ friendly takeover of Allergan granted the merged company access to the Top 10 companies
by Enterprise Value within the pharmaceutical industry. Both companies followed different R&D
models: Allergan’s closer to the traditional approach and Actavis opting for the Growth Pharma model.
However, a combination of both companies seemed to bring the best of these two worlds. On one
side, Allergan’s expertise in developing new drugs and block-buster patents such as BOTOX®. On
the other side, Actavis’ best-in-class in pipeline success rate through a spotless record of effectively
integrated acquisitions
Understanding Growth Pharma: a deep dive into the Actavis-Allergan merger
Get PDFSince the 2000s, the Pharmaceutical industry has been facing strong challenges: a constantly changing
and increasingly complex regulatory environment, an erosion of margins caused by governmental
pricing pressures and a decrease in Research & Development (R&D) productivity. This complex
environment has hurt the industry’s bottom line, forcing incumbents and new players to reconsider
their approach to the industry’s propelling engine: R&D.
Traditionally, innovation was driven by big pharmaceutical companies allocating an important
amount of their sales on R&D spending. By developing new drugs in-house, these companies were
managing to keep the control over these new drugs and treatments. These innovations were then
protected by patents lasting for a few decades. Once the protection had expired, other players could
enter the market by replicating the drug, driving its prices and hence, its profitability down by as
much as 80%.
In the last decades, the way innovation is being delivered has changed. Rather than big pharmaceutical
firms developing new products, small biotechnological start-ups are responsible for most of the new
discoveries. Their small size forces these players to specialize and focus all their R&D efforts on
specific therapeutic areas. Additionally, these start-ups can attract human capital and talent, but lack
financial muscle to exploit their findings. These conditions set the perfect framework for the increase
of M&A activity with far more potential targets to buy.
Building on this, a new business model has arisen in the industry: Growth Pharma. Among others, its
most important characteristic is the way R&D is conducted. Instead of vast investments to develop
drugs in-house, Growth Pharma companies tend to buy other biotech & pharma companies to acquire
their drug development pipeline. In this way, rather than dealing with the uncertainty of developing
new drugs and facing regulatory risks, these companies acquire other players with drugs in late-stage
of development.
The merger of Actavis and Allergan is considered as of 2015 the foremost example of Growth Pharma.
In addition to being the fourth largest deal of all times in the Pharmaceutical industry, its
characteristics make it a unique deal. The story started with an unsuccessful hostile takeover by
Valeant Pharmaceuticals, a company which embraced Growth Pharma under the leadership of Michael
Pearson. Some investors considered Valeant the new Berkshire Hathaway after it partnered in 2014
with Pershing Square, a New York based hedge fund, to do a hostile takeover over Allergan.
Actavis’ friendly takeover of Allergan granted the merged company access to the Top 10 companies
by Enterprise Value within the pharmaceutical industry. Both companies followed different R&D
models: Allergan’s closer to the traditional approach and Actavis opting for the Growth Pharma model.
However, a combination of both companies seemed to bring the best of these two worlds. On one
side, Allergan’s expertise in developing new drugs and block-buster patents such as BOTOX®. On
the other side, Actavis’ best-in-class in pipeline success rate through a spotless record of effectively
integrated acquisitions
Understanding Growth Pharma: a deep dive into the Actavis-Allergan merger
Get PDFSince the 2000s, the Pharmaceutical industry has been facing strong challenges: a constantly changing
and increasingly complex regulatory environment, an erosion of margins caused by governmental
pricing pressures and a decrease in Research & Development (R&D) productivity. This complex
environment has hurt the industry’s bottom line, forcing incumbents and new players to reconsider
their approach to the industry’s propelling engine: R&D.
Traditionally, innovation was driven by big pharmaceutical companies allocating an important
amount of their sales on R&D spending. By developing new drugs in-house, these companies were
managing to keep the control over these new drugs and treatments. These innovations were then
protected by patents lasting for a few decades. Once the protection had expired, other players could
enter the market by replicating the drug, driving its prices and hence, its profitability down by as
much as 80%.
In the last decades, the way innovation is being delivered has changed. Rather than big pharmaceutical
firms developing new products, small biotechnological start-ups are responsible for most of the new
discoveries. Their small size forces these players to specialize and focus all their R&D efforts on
specific therapeutic areas. Additionally, these start-ups can attract human capital and talent, but lack
financial muscle to exploit their findings. These conditions set the perfect framework for the increase
of M&A activity with far more potential targets to buy.
Building on this, a new business model has arisen in the industry: Growth Pharma. Among others, its
most important characteristic is the way R&D is conducted. Instead of vast investments to develop
drugs in-house, Growth Pharma companies tend to buy other biotech & pharma companies to acquire
their drug development pipeline. In this way, rather than dealing with the uncertainty of developing
new drugs and facing regulatory risks, these companies acquire other players with drugs in late-stage
of development.
The merger of Actavis and Allergan is considered as of 2015 the foremost example of Growth Pharma.
In addition to being the fourth largest deal of all times in the Pharmaceutical industry, its
characteristics make it a unique deal. The story started with an unsuccessful hostile takeover by
Valeant Pharmaceuticals, a company which embraced Growth Pharma under the leadership of Michael
Pearson. Some investors considered Valeant the new Berkshire Hathaway after it partnered in 2014
with Pershing Square, a New York based hedge fund, to do a hostile takeover over Allergan.
Actavis’ friendly takeover of Allergan granted the merged company access to the Top 10 companies
by Enterprise Value within the pharmaceutical industry. Both companies followed different R&D
models: Allergan’s closer to the traditional approach and Actavis opting for the Growth Pharma model.
However, a combination of both companies seemed to bring the best of these two worlds. On one
side, Allergan’s expertise in developing new drugs and block-buster patents such as BOTOX®. On
the other side, Actavis’ best-in-class in pipeline success rate through a spotless record of effectively
integrated acquisitions
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
