Pharma Technologies Case Analysis Pharma Technologies A Essay
- Length: 4 pages
- Sources: 2
- Subject: Medicine
- Type: Essay
- Paper: #28653189
Excerpt from Essay :
Case analysis Pharma Technologies: A biotechnology firm, Pharma Technologies, developed a competing method treatment erectile dysfunction
Pharma Technologies Inc. based in Canada at a major medical research University in February 1999, wanted to develop a product to compete with Viagra which is developed by Pfizer. PTI obtained a patent for developing a revolutionary sexual dysfunctional treatment drug. The company is faced with financial problems to assist it in developing the new drug. Before a drug can receive full approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it needs to undergo several testing phases. These testing phases consume a lot of time money. The case study indicates that it can cost over $500 million and take 10 years before the drug is approved for manufacturing and marketing Herbert, 2004.
The patent the company obtained has a life span of 20 years. The patent is obtained when the development process is beginning, which gives the company a short period before the drug becomes commercially available. These problems put a lot of pressure on PTI to expedite on the development process.
The other problem was negotiating an agreement with owners of Factor X, which was the main component for their drug. Though PTI had found investors who had committed to funding the project for a tune of $5 million, the investors had specified conditions and milestones that would have to be met before the funds were released. The first amounts would be released immediately after the agreement was signed, and the second after PTI has successfully completed the technical milestones and signing a partnership agreement for co-development with a pharmaceutical company.
The issues that would need to be addressed immediately to ensure the continuation of the development and release of funds are, selecting a pharmaceutical company to partner with, get Investigational New Drug (IND) status, so they can begin clinical trials, and fixing the final product components. These milestones had to be achieved in the next 11 months of the project. For the company to achieve the milestones set out by the investors, the company should expedite on the corporate partnership agreement, and finalize on the screening process.
How will PTI be able to get access of the second payment from the investors as the company was running low on funds? This is the question that Glickman was mostly concerned about, since he knew that the company's expenditure for the next 6 months would deplete all the funds of the company.
PTI wanted to introduce a revolutionary method for treating male erectile dysfunction. The company had discovered a different method that could be used to treat erectile dysfunction, and since their method addresses physiology underlying erectile dysfunction, PTI could be able to prevent any progression of erectile dysfunction. This would set their product apart from other competitors as it would also have reduced side effects on the patients.
The drug PTI was developing had the potential to prevent progression and onset of erectile dysfunction and could even be able to reverse the disease. These would have a wider reach in the patient populations as it would cure instead of just treating the dysfunction. There were patients who could not use Viagra since they were on nitrate therapy for the cardiovascular disease. While conducting research for the new revolutionary drug, the scientists discovered a method that could be used to diagnose male erectile dysfunction and female sexual disorders.
PTI has an option of partnering with a major pharmaceutical company or a small company. The partner that PTI selects will determine if the company will choose in-licensing or out-licensing. PTI would mostly benefit if they choose to go with in-licensing as opposed to out-licensing their technology. Though in-licensing would allow PTI to have control of their technology, it would mean they had to settle for a smaller pharmaceutical company Taylor, Drummond, Salkeld, & Sullivan, 2004.
This small company's might not have the leverage for pushing the product, but PTI would reap the benefits of profit sharing with the partner as opposed with opting for out-licensing. Though going with in-licensing would not give PTI the opportunity to launch all of the company's research initiatives.
PTI could also try to partner with a major pharmaceutical company and have a collaborative agreement instead of going for the out-licensing option. If PTI can find a major partner who would be willing to…