Biotica becomes new victim of Pfizer’s R&D downsizing
pharmafile | August 8, 2011 | News story | Research and Development, Sales and Marketing |
Pfizer has pulled out of a $195 million deal with UK firm Biotica, as it continues to downsize its global R&D programmes.
The two firms were working on the rapamycin analogue programme, which was being investigated by Pfizer for its potential in lupus and multiple sclerosis.
Biotica said that it fully intends to continue development in these indications, despite the loss of its partner.
Dr. Edward Hodgkin, chief executive at Biotica, said: “Our compounds are supported by a strong data package generated by Pfizer, and show evidence of meaningful differentiation in diseases with significant unmet need.”
The original deal between Biotica and Wyeth in 2006 was for $195 million, which Pfizer took on after its $68 billion ‘mega merger’ with the company three years later.
Dr Mary Collins, chief scientific officer, Immunology and Autoimmunity Research Unit at Pfizer, said: “Pfizer enjoyed a productive collaboration with Biotica.
“The decision to return this programme to Biotica was made as part of Pfizer’s portfolio review process […] we wish Biotica success as it moves its analogue programme forward.”
The UK firm was still optimistic over its future, saying it would be advancing a strong pipeline of engineered polyketides, including its best-in-class anti-viral cyclophilin inhibitors and the rapamycin analogue programme.
UK hit again as Pfizer reduces R&D spend
The move is part of Pfizer’s global R&D restructuring, which has seen the firm cut its research budget from a peak of $9.4 billion in 2010, down to an estimated $6.5 billion by next year.
This is the second casualty of Pfizer’s programme in the UK after it announced the closure of its main European R&D site in Sandwich, Kent, in February.
Earlier this week Dr John LaMattina, former head of R&D at Pfizer, criticised his former employer’s policy of downsizing R&D projects post-merger, as this was producing a ‘devastating’ effect on research whilst jeopardising the future of new drug approvals.
Ben Adams
