Something we hear a lot: ‘our strategy is simple - it is to be first to market.’
That sounds like a good plan, especially when you see markets like the checkpoint inhibitor space…
It’s easy to see that chart, and have your takeaway be ‘well yes, that’s a lesson to be first or second in class.’ There are lots of lessons in that market, but let’s remember: none of the difference in this market ($40bn…) is down to superior molecules. It comes down to decisions. Decisions taken by actual humans: indication, biomarkers, patient inclusion, positioning and more. Was it just being 3rd that led to Tecentriq struggling, or was it that Genentech’s eyes remained on protecting Avastin to its dying days…? So, not taking decisions became, in effect, a decision to be late to market.
If your takeaway is ‘let’s be first, so let’s just plan a 3rd line lung label’ and your competitor goes to a 1st line label, does your decision then look smart?
There is no obvious ‘market’ for any drug. Xalkori launched with a 24 patient phase II study, but with a highly predictive biomarker. Had the second not been looked for, the first couldn’t have happened.
Because there is no obvious market for any drug, the only response to ‘first to market’ is ‘which market? And do we get a say?’