MNTA, NVS, and FoB's
(from MNTA board on SI)
>>
From: DewDiligence_on_SI
1/25/2008 12:37:15 AM
To: osofun who wrote 1572 of 1574
>If sandoz has 19 FoB’s in its pipeline, why is mnta only working on a couple? Why has sandoz not paired up more?<
A few points:
1. The number 19 refers to NVS’ FoB projects, not its FoB proteins. A given protein could correspond to two or three projects in which each project is a dossier for one regulatory jurisdiction. Hence, the two FoB proteins on which MNTA is a co-developer could represent more than two projects.
2. Some of NVS’ FoB’s may be proteins that are relatively easy to make. NVS already has a marketed biosimilar hGH (Omnitrope) that was developed without any help from MNTA. Among the possible “easier” items in NVS’ FoB pipeline are interferon alpha, interferon beta, G-CSF, and FSH; I wouldn’t expect NVS to have much trouble developing any of these, particularly in the EU market.
3. MNTA could conceivably be involved with NVS on more FoB proteins than the two that have been announced.
>Why is MNTA actively seeking other pharma companies for FoB’s?<
I’m not sure I understand the question. Insofar as MNTA’s FoB collaboration with NVS is non-exclusive, it is to MNTA’s advantage to seek out as many FoB collaborations as it can.
<<
“The efficient-market hypothesis may be
the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated
in any area of human knowledge!”