Mount­ing a pre­lim­i­nary ef­fort to catch up with oth­er phar­ma gi­ants in the on­colyt­ic virus space, As­traZeneca has found a part­ner in France’s Trans­gene.

In the deal, the biotech — which is al­ready al­lied with Bris­tol-My­ers Squibb and Pfiz­er/Mer­ck KGaA on com­bi­na­tion pro­grams with its in-house ther­a­peu­tic vac­cines — will come up with five new armed on­colyt­ic vac­cinia virus can­di­dates. As­traZeneca is start­ing small with $10 mil­lion up­front and just $3 mil­lion in pre­clin­i­cal suc­cess mile­stones, but promis­es an undis­closed li­cense fee for each clin­i­cal can­di­date they ul­ti­mate­ly de­cide to co-de­vel­op.

Jean-Charles So­ria

The phar­ma gi­ant $AZN will al­so be able to choose the trans­genes to be en­cod­ed with­in the virus, a key ad­di­tion that pro­vides added fire­pow­er to the im­mune sys­tem against the tu­mor.

Long rec­og­nized as a tool to di­rect­ly kill can­cer cells, on­colyt­ic virus­es gained trac­tion in re­cent years af­ter re­search sug­gests that by burst­ing can­cer cells and re­leas­ing anti­gens with­in, they can al­so trig­ger an im­mune re­sponse. That makes them a po­tent im­munother­a­pies on its own as well as an ide­al pair­ing agent for the next gen­er­a­tion of I/O com­bos.

As­traZeneca first got its hands on an on­colyt­ic virus in 2015 when it inked a li­cens­ing agree­ment with Om­nis Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals (now Vyr­i­ad), but it told Bio­Cen­tu­ry that “there are cur­rent­ly no on­go­ing AZ-spon­sored clin­i­cal tri­als of the can­di­date.”

Jean-Charles So­ria, SVP of As­traZeneca’s new­ly named on­col­o­gy unit, added they have “an ex­cit­ing port­fo­lio of mol­e­cules that we be­lieve may aug­ment on­colyt­ic virus ac­tiv­i­ty.”

Oth­er big play­ers such as Mer­ck, J&J, Pfiz­er and Boehringer have each bagged or seed­ed their own on­colyt­ic virus projects on the foot­steps of Am­gen’s T Vec, along­side biotech play­ers like PsiOxus, un­der­scor­ing the mo­men­tum of the next wave.

Mean­while, Trans­gene will con­tin­ue plough­ing on its in-house pipeline and promis­es to send a few more drugs to the clin­ic in 2020.

Biotech is one of the smartest, best educated industries on the planet. PhDs abound. We’ve had a long enough track record to see a new generation of savvy, experienced execs coming together to run startups.

And in these times, they are being tested as never before.

Biotech is going through quite a rough patch right now. For 2 years, practically anyone with a decent resume and some half-baked ideas on biotech could start a company and get it funded. The pandemic made it easy in many ways to pull off an IPO, with traditional road shows shut down in exchange for a series of quick Zoom meetings. Generalist investors flocked as the numbers raised soared into the stratosphere.

It looks like Warren Buffett is sticking to ice cream and railroads for the moment.

The billionaire CEO of Berkshire Hathaway backed out of two major holdings in the pharma industry, Forexlive first reported, including a $410 million investment in AbbVie and a $324.4 million stake in Bristol Myers Squibb.

The move comes after Berkshire abandoned its Teva shares just last quarter, Bloomberg reported.

Nearly a year ago, more than 200 workers at Novartis’ Grimsby, UK, facility were able to hang on to their jobs after the pharma closed a Switzerland site as a part of its workforce restructuring plan. Now, it looks like those employees’ time is up, as the site has been sold, Grimsby Telegraph reported today.

The manufacturing site has been sold to Humber Industrials, a subsidiary of International Process Plants. None of the current staff members will be working with the new owners, however.

Usually reserved for making decisions on drug applications or enforcing what Congress stipulates, the FDA is now dipping its toe into the wild world of congressional politics as it attempts to fix a major court decision that could have a chilling effect on rare disease R&D.

The case in question from last October saw a US appeals court overturn a prior FDA court win, saying that the agency never should’ve approved a rare disease drug because a previously approved but more expensive drug with the same active ingredient has orphan drug exclusivity barring such an approval.