was successfully added to your cart.

Category

Valuation

2018 M&A activity in life science Scandinavia

By | Business Development, Valuation, What's the deal | No Comments

During 2018, 12 life science mergers and acquisition (M&A) deals took place in Scandinavia for a total value of $11.5 billion. After a year with several inbound and outbound deals, we can conclude that Scandinavian life science companies beyond doubt are becoming more and more established in the world. But in which areas and within which fields are these deals taking place? To answer this question, we took a deep dive into the 2018 M&A activities of the Scandinavian life science industry!

Life science is a broad field, where companies can be divided into four different subsectors that include biotech, pharma, medtech and healthtech (see Figure 1). The biotech sector is the largest of them (total of 58%) and is in turn divided into four subsectors. Given the market size, it is unsurprisingly also the sector with most M&A deals. Following this is the medtech sector, which makes up almost one-third of the life science industry (29%) and bore the largest valued M&A deal in 2018.

In total, the Scandinavian life science industry comprises more than 1,330 companies (see Figure 2), where most companies are located in Sweden (65%), followed by Denmark (20%) and then Norway (15%). Due to the innovativeness and quality products/services developed in this region, these companies represent potential opportunities for M&A deals in the life science Industry.

Note: This is an analysis of selected M&A or asset acquisition deals with publicly disclosed deal values. Deals with undisclosed values have not been included.

Sweden

Sweden is Scandinavia’s largest country in terms of landmass, population and number of life science companies. Only in 2018, Swedish companies spent about $492.4 million (see Table 1) on the acquisition of other companies or assets, where 96% was spent in international companies or assets and 4% remained within national boundaries. In terms of inbound deals, only two Swedish companies were acquired. The total sum of these acquisitions amounted to $860.6 million, where the majority stems from the American company Alexion Pharmaceuticals’ acquisition of Wilson Therapeutics for $855 million.

Swedish M&A in 2018

Acquirer Acquired Assets/services involved Total deal value
Biotage (Sweden)* Horizon Technology (US) Provider of systems and consumables for separation in water purification, food safety, petrochemical industry, biofuels, agriculture and the pharma industry $17.9 million
AddLife (Sweden) Wellspect HealthCare (Sweden) Business in surgery and respiration $20 million (€18 million)
Biotage (Sweden) PhyNexus (US) Dual flow chromatography and patented tip technology for higher throughoutput purification $21.5 million
Recipharm (Sweden) Sanofi (France) Manufacturing center and business in respiratory diseases $58 million (GPB 45 million)
Recipharm (Sweden) Nitin Lifesciences (India) Pharma company with strong presence in injectable manufacturing $86 million (824 million SEK)
Karo Pharma (Sweden) Leo Pharma (Denmark) Product portfolio in infection, cardiovascular and dermatology $289 million (€260 million)
Ultimovacs (Norway) Immuneed (Sweden) Immunotherapy technology business $5.8 million (50.4 million NOK)
Alexion Pharmaceuticals (U.S.) Wilson Therapeutics (Sweden) Novel therapies in rare copper-mediated disorders, including WTX101 product $855 million (7.1 billion SEK)

 

Denmark

Denmark (Greenland exempted) is a small country with a high density of life science companies. From the selected deals in 2018, Danish companies spent about $1.8 billion in the acquisition of other European companies or assets. In terms of inbound deals, three Danish companies were acquired for a combined value of a hefty $8.6 billion. The deal between Widex and Sivantos alone was valued at $8.3 billion and is considered the largest M&A deal in Scandinavia during 2018.

Danish M&A in 2018

Acquirer Acquired Assets/services involved Deal value
Novo Nordisk (Denmark) Ziylo (UK) Science incubator (including glucose binding molecule platform) $800 million
Lundbeck (Denmark) Prexton Therapeutics (Netherlands) Foliglurax in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease $1 billion (€905 million):
Virtus (Australia) Triangeln Fertility Clinic/ Fertilitetsklinikken Trianglen (Denmark) Treatment of fertility $30 million (202 million DKK)
Karo Pharma (Sweden) Leo Pharma (Denmark) Product portfolio in infection, cardiovascular and dermatology $289 million (€260 million)
Sivantos Group (Germany)* Widex (Denmark) Hearing aids $8.3 billion (€7 billion)

Norway

Norway has the highest GDP per capita and is known for its innovativeness and openness to new technologies. As an example, Norway was the first Scandinavian country to approve a CAR T-cell therapy (gene therapy): Luxturna. In 2018, only one acquisition deal with disclosed values was identified. This deal was Ultimovacs’ acquisition of the immunotherapy technology business Immuneed for $5.8 million.

Norwegian M&A in 2018

Acquirer Acquired Assets/services involved Deal value
Ultimovacs (Norway) Immuneed (Sweden) Immunotherapy technology business $5.8 million (50.4 million NOK)

Concluding thoughts on an increasingly stronger life science field

The M&A and asset acquisition scene of Scandinavian life science companies is on fire with several large cross-border deals taking place in 2018. Acquisitions performed by American, Australian and European companies strongly signal Scandinavian companies’ international reach. Nevertheless, there were more outbound than inbound deals involving Swedish companies suggesting that Swedish companies may often both be financially healthy, and business savvy, to expand their operations and presence internationally. Denmark, on the other hand, is home to the big and internationally established companies such as Novo Nordisk and Lundbeck. Therefore, it is not surprising that these companies performed high-value deals with other European countries. Furthermore, a major oncology cluster is located in Norway and this means that over the next couple of years, we may continue to see inbound and outbound oncology-related M&A deals in this country.

Companies in Sweden are often both financially healthy, and business savvy, enough to expand their operations and presence internationally.

Based on the high concentration of life science companies located in Scandinavia, we may continue to see an increasing number of M&A deals in these sectors. Although the majority of acquisition deals belonged to biotech companies, especially those developing therapeutics, the highest valued M&A deal in 2018 took place between the two medtech companies Sivanto and Widex. Medtech companies have a shorter time to market and when these companies reach the market and become established in the market, the acquisition value increases. Thus, this is a perfect example of how more mature innovative companies are valued higher in an M&A, whereas high risk early stage companies, such as those developing therapeutics, are valued slightly lower in upfront payments, and oftentimes include milestone payments and/or potential royalties to leverage risk and compensate for their high valuation.

Finally, the healthtech sector is still in an embryonic stage and it is just starting to blossom. For example, the company Tunstall Healthcare acquired Danish company EWii Telecare for connected healthcare products and tele-medical solutions for various patient groups. This sector should not be underestimated since the whole field is moving more towards personalized and connected healthcare. Therefore, it will not be a surprise if the number of deals in this sector increases in the upcoming years.

By: Paola Jo, Management Consultant

Is it time to go orphan?

By | Business Development, Valuation | No Comments

Over the years, numerous of investigations and articles have analyzed the likelihood of a drug’s approval per each phase of the clinical development. Latest in line is the Endpoints’ piece PhI may still be a killing field of failure but PhIII success rates have surged, signaling tectonic shifts in biopharma R&D. Endpoints conclude that the statistics haven’t changed much over the years – with one exception: the likelihood of success for Phase 3 trials has increased. But why is that and what difference does it make to an investor?

Endpoints news base their article on an analysis from The Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) international that was published in the top tier journal Nature reviews earlier this month. According to Endpoints, the data show that the success rate of all drugs making it from Phase 1 to market is 6-7%. This has more or less been constant over the past decade. For all drugs entering a Phase 2 trial, only 15% make it to the market. This number increases to the modest 62% when looking at how many Phase 3 drugs reaching the market. A decade ago, however, the success rate was only at 49%.

The CMR analyst found two key trends behind the increase in the Phase 3 success rate:

1. Big Pharma has become better at concentrating their last-stage resources

CMR argues that a dip in the number of drugs entering Phase 3 suggests that the big players have become better at concentrating their last-stage resources on therapies with high chance of success, i.e. Big Pharma has become better at selecting successful molecules. Based on our experience, however, we find this unlikely. Although, there might be some truth in that increased competition and stronger shareholder demands have limited Big Pharma’s freedom when it comes to what they can invest in.

2. Increased focus on rare disease drugs

The second trend identified by CMR is an increased focus on rare disease drugs. To us, this sounds like a more likely explanation as most industry experts believe that orphan drugs are more likely to succeed. We see several explanations behind this, such as higher success rate, where a few is the simpler underlying statistics, more help from authorities, major clinical needs and few existing treatments available. Both Hay et al. (2014) and a report on Clinical Development Success Rates 2006-2015 also conclude that orphan drugs have a higher success rate across all three stages of pharmaceutical development. According to Hay et al., orphan phase 3 success rate in 2014 was 66.9% compared to 60.1% across all indications. In other words, this increased focus on orphan drugs is supported by our own experience, as well as previous literature.

If you are choosing between investing in the execution of a Phase 3 study targeting a common disease or a rare disease, the latter should in the long run provide a better return on investment.

Conclusions: Should you go orphan?

Statistics on large groups are always difficult to apply on the individual case. Based on CMR:s statistics, previous literature and our own experience, our conclusion is that this evidence base indirectly imply that if you are choosing between executing a Phase 3 trial targeting a common disease or a Phase 3 trial in a rare disease, the latter should in the long run provide a better return on investment. This applies just as much to managers prioritizing between existing products in their portfolios as to retail investors choosing in which company to invest. For drug developers, this means that rather than going for one of the world’s most common diseases, it could be strategically-wise to focus the effort on a small niche indication.

One example of a company that choose the orphan way is Oncopeptides. In 2015, Oncopeptides announced that both FDA and EMA had granted Orphan Drug Designations for the company’s lead candidate melflufen, in the treatment of multiple myeloma. In addition, the company recently announced an intent to apply for accelerated approval in the U.S. and are currently conducting four parallel clinical studies.