IMS report: EBD partnering data dissected

August 28, 2015 ctheodoropulos

The IMS EBD Analysis report has been released today at BioPharm America in Boston. Click on the link to see the full report.

IMSHC_EBD Analysis_Report_September 2015

If you have attended any of our events, such as BIO-Europe®, then you know that they are a hive of partnering activity. Deals are plotted, shaped and consummated as thousands of executives shuttle between one-to-one meetings. If you are like us, then you are probably wondering which companies from what sector are getting the most attention.

To get some answers, we asked IMS Health Capital (IMSHC), the investment banking arm of IMS Health, to analyze partnering data from our most recent conferences. Fully anonymized data, including company profiles and records of meeting invites and accepts from 4,900 companies were extracted from BioPharm America™ 2014, BIO-Europe 2014, Biotech Showcase™ 2015, and BIO-Europe Spring® 2015.

Their complete analysis will be presented at the Pharma and Large Biotech tracks during BioPharm America 2015 in Boston on Tuesday and Wednesday (September 15–16) at 8:30 am. But until then, we can share a few key of the key insights:


As mirrored in every other industry deal data-set, oncology continues to be the dominant interest among pharma and biotech companies, with more than twice the number of invitations and meetings than the next largest therapy area. However, because of the high level of competition, oncology-focused companies were not more successful than companies focused on other therapy areas in their rate of meeting invitation acceptances.

Cardiovascular-focused companies have, in fact, been the most successful in scheduling meetings at recent conferences among the major therapeutic sectors



In addition to the aggregated view, investor-focused meeting requests were analyzed as a subset to identify similarities and differences. As with the aggregate, investors held far more meetings to discuss oncology than any other therapy area.

However, investors were less likely than pharma companies to accept meetings on cardiovascular, respiratory, digestive, and central nervous system therapies. This trend most likely reflects investor concerns over the potential need for large, expensive registration trials.



Previous Article
RA Capital: Flexibility builds innovation
RA Capital: Flexibility builds innovation

Flexibility is the watchword for investment at RA Capital Management. As Peter Kolchinsky, managing directo...

Next Article
Johnson & Johnson Innovation aims for disruption
Johnson & Johnson Innovation aims for disruption

Johnson & Johnson Innovation, Boston, has high expectations for itself and its partners. "We're looking for...