How has the CMO business evolved over the past decade in broad terms?
Mr. Ball: Even as recently as the last decade, many firms wanted complete control over the manufacturing process of a bio-new chemical entity (NCE). This equates to risk because of the long lead time and capital commitment required for facility build-out and the uncertainty of clinical and commercial success of a molecule.
Biocontract manufacturing organizations have taken much of that capital risk away since the CMO has the infrastructure already in place. But in exchange for this decreased financial risk, the client does lose some control. I believe CMOs have helped mitigate client companies’ concerns over loss of control with more customized approaches and by engaging in longer-term strategic partnerships across a variety of projects with a client rather than a “one-and-done” approach.
Mr. Geffroy: One fundamental difference over the past 10 years is integrated services. A decade ago, the CMO market was much more fragmented than today, made up of many more companies that were smaller in size and specialized in niche areas.
As the pharma and biotech industry strived for continuous improvements in terms of efficiency and cost, the CMO market has consolidated and fewer players are offering a much broader range of services in an integrated fashion. The benefits are multiple: less time to manage CMOs, fewer audits and contracts, less travel, and above all a faster and leaner way to conduct drug development with a much clearer communication channel.
Mr. Head: A shift in corporate financing has contributed to changes in the CMO space. Ten years ago the venture capitalist markets supported many new startup drug discovery businesses. Now I see the money coming from licensing deals and government-supported grants.
In my opinion, this shift has made it difficult for companies to get started and has increased the challenges of how they handle projects. Venture capitalists, who at one time financed pre-IND companies, now require an IND to be filed and have a positive Phase I trial before they invest.
A paradigm shift is also occurring within large pharma, where we are seeing cuts in internal R&D efforts and a desire for strategic partnerships with small and mid-sized biotechs. Usually these biotech companies have to have at least proof of concept and often early clinical phase data before large pharma will invest.
I also see a much larger shift with biotech companies opting to outsource instead of making products in-house. As patents expire, a large number of pharmas have closed their pilot facilities in an effort to manage their budgets and offset the revenue streams that no longer exist.
Mr. McGrath: We have seen many changes and fluctuations in the CMO market. Most notably, under the increased cost pressures, large pharmaceutical companies have reduced their R&D investments, and outsourcing has now become a strategic aspect of their supply chain. The current shift in the R&D landscape also includes an increase in small biotechnology startups and increased funding from venture capitalists.
In fact, many of the molecules on the market today come from small companies, where the majority originated with large pharmaceutical companies a decade ago. However, the fierce competition for VC funding will continue to grow over the next 10 years with a focus being paid to late-phase development. In addition, there has been an increase in complexity to the standard outsourcing model due to tighter regulations from the FDA and increased cost pressures from governmental bodies.
Dr. Nachtmann: The CMO industry for recombinant proteins, for example, has experienced various changes in the last 10 years. It has grown, with an average CAGR of more than 10% due to an increasing number of molecules entering clinical trials and the increased need for outsourcing of process development and GMP manufacturing.
The industry has also experienced consolidation due to the high financial requirements for investments for the commercial manufacture of recombinant products, especially for mammalian cell culture. While this was occurring, new players have entered the market. Several originator companies such as Sanofi, GSK, and Baxter began offering their excess capacity for contract production. In addition, we saw the entry of the first Korean company, Celltrion, into contract manufacturing.
Dr. Payne: Innovators have recognized that there is value in working with integrated solutions providers that can solve complex development and formulation challenges. They are looking for more sophistication than the traditional contract manufacturer can provide. They are less interested in managing multiple narrowly focused providers who lack the financial staying power to inspire the confidence that they will be around for the long haul.
Much of the talent that used to be part of vertically integrated large pharma/biopharma companies are now applying their skills within contract solution providers. In many instances they are now supporting the same companies they used to work for from the outside along with the many small emerging companies who are the driving force for much of the innovation within the industry.
Some larger companies have begun to overcome the “not invented here” bias, and are actively looking to partner with integrated solution providers who can more cost effectively perform development activities and bring to bear a wide array of technologies to address drug delivery challenges.
Dr. Pohlmeyer: During the past decade CMOs experienced on the one hand significant improvements of the manufacturing technology and on the other the maturation and consolidation of the biotech industry.
The achievements in manufacturing technology, for example increases in expression yields, new optimized downstream technologies, and availability of a large variety of disposable equipment, have significantly improved production efficiency. In addition to increasing manufacturing yields we observed an increasing number of niche products (e.g., orphan drugs) and the reduction of dosages. In conclusion, production scales went down for clinical trial supply as well as for commercial manufacturing.
To keep up the optimization pace, CMOs need to constantly invest in the development and implementation of new manufacturing technologies and the corresponding equipment. Additionally, CMOs have to deal with the pressure on the costs of goods and prices as well as an increasing competitive environment, all the while achieving a high level of flexibility and regulatory compliance.
Dr. Voss: The biopharmaceuticals CMO business has been and still is a project-based business with high fixed cost base that is sensitive to changing utilization, especially in large-scale manufacturing. Historically, the high capital expenditure level has presented a significant entry barrier.
Today—with increasing yields and the use of disposable technologies—the CMO landscape is more competitive than 10 years ago. We have addressed these market changes by, for example, establishing new business models intended to build long-term relationships with customers rather than being a pure manufacturing partner.
Mr. Wessels: In the mammalian cell culture CMO space, the last 10 years have been marked by expansion. Participating CMOs have added capacity or capabilities and new players have entered the field. This aligns with the growth of the industry and the increase in number of products in R&D.
Mammalian cell culture processes themselves have improved over the last 10 years, gaining in efficiency and consistency starting from a very poor performance level overall. However, the manufacture of biologic compounds still represents a high-cost, high-capital expenditure, high scale-up risk proposition compared to small molecule chemical synthesis. One of the key changes occurring in the industry is a new view to reducing the costs of mammalian cell culture manufacturing.