Competitive Landscape

For a given disease, what is the current treatment paradigm? How are technologies in development similar, different, and possibly complementary to one another?

Our maps answer these questions by presenting the range of technologies that are likely to impact a disease in the foreseeable future.

Direction

What might the standard of care look like in 5-10 years given the probabilities of success of various technologies and their relative efficacies, safety profiles, tolerabilities, and costs? How can companies “skate to where the puck is going to be”?

The answers to these questions help define the development path that will establish that a drug, device, or diagnostic has a place in the future treatment paradigm. This analysis also predicts what technologies may theoretically be left behind in the evolving landscape, and how companies might correct their course to stay competitive.

End Game

We believe that companies should define themselves by the problem they aim to solve and select an appropriate technology based on the unique etiology and pathophysiology of the relevant disease(s). What technologies may prevent or cure it? Or, if prevention or cure are not feasible, what technologies might optimally manage the disease? What technologies might achieve lesser goals (e.g., suboptimal disease management)?

The answers to these questions not only guide our investments but also enable our portfolio companies and drug hunters (e.g., Entrepreneurs in Residence and advisors) to understand what technologies they can license to tailor their development towards the most competitive target product profile.

Incumbents/Disruptors

What companies currently profit from the standard of care in a given disease area? How are they vulnerable to disruptions? How can they strengthen and protect their market position by developing additional technologies or partnering with/acquiring other companies or assets?

Once we have constructed a map that identifies potential collaborations or M&A opportunities for our portfolio companies, addressing these strategic questions is relatively straightforward. Even if this analysis reveals gaps that cannot be filled by licensing existing drugs, it can still inform portfolio prioritization for platform companies, which could potentially address these gaps by developing drugs for particular targets.

Reimbursement Strategy

What could payers or policymakers do to increase the degree of price competition or restrict use of branded products in the future in a particular disease area? In the face of such hurdles, how can companies still achieve commercial success?

Payers typically take advantage of generics and multiple branded agents in the same class to exact discounts, and policymakers are slow to change the rules. Therefore, the optimal strategy to maintain future profits is to remain innovative and develop such superior products that payers cannot deny their value to patients. Sometimes our maps delineate a development endpoint where further improvements are unlikely and companies must prepare for price competition.