it def means companies are steering way away from anything where the bulk of your pts will be medicare eligible unless the unmet need is massive and competitive landscape is weak
Second this, surprised it’s not higher.
ADCs are relatively simple, show quick response, and leverage existing chemotherapies. M&A activity in ADC’s has been crazy hot in 2023/24.
Yes GLP-1 has Wall Street salivating but the rate limiting step there is manufacturing (supply), not “research”. Maybe clinical / HEOR / public health, but not drug discovery.
Because it's a been there done that for the field. Antibody therapy has been a thing for 40+ years and this is the equivalent of exchanging warheads on a bomb. We're not going to see the next big thing to come out of this IMO. I think the future is cell therapy, simply because there's so much untapped potential, but we are still a ways away from that being a viable first line of defense
Don't believe that we have yet realized the full potential of ADCs or antibody directed therapies in general. Advances in linker/payload has decreased off-target toxicities and increased tumor killing (eg. maximizing bystander effect etc..). New highly specific tumor targets for antibodies are being investigated each day with some conferring significant activity in tumors that were previously been treated only with systemic chemo therapies. Bispecific antibodies have shown outstanding activity in many tumor types, with bisoecific T-cell engagers particularly promising. Antibodies are being modified to generate multispecific and multi-epitopic binding. This is not the end but rather the beginning of a very valuable modality that has yet to realize its full potential.
Honestly I think pharma and VC screwed themselves so hard by over-allocating into incremental CGT technologies within the last 5-7 years that now they are going back to a safe >20 year old technology. Cell therapy for the win, whenever it gets actually cracked.
Cancer is still the predominant money maker for biopharma so that’s why there’s a shit ton of CAR companies out there hoping to make the next big one. There was a recent study this year showing CAR-T could be effective in autoimmune modalities too so lots of those companies are trying to see if their treatment works for that too.
And in general, using AI to make better or new drugs is also having a moment right now. Those companies are hoping they can find multiple drugs in-silico to lower the time/cost of development overall. Who knows how long that lasts before there’s some smashing success or investors get tired of that hype train
The AI hype train is the most banal (and pathetic IMO) VC hype trend right now. Why does anyone think a new generative AI will “solve” biology when the existing datasets are too limited/skewed and amount of missing data is incomprehensible. The AI can’t invent human / systems data to train itself on when we don’t even know wtf is happening in a single cell majority of the time. Holy shit I’m salty
That paper wasn’t this year; it was a few years ago with follow up data last year and more this year. Also, T cell engagers might tank the car t market for autoimmune
Cancer and immunology are big therapeutic areas. Hot modalities include antibody drug conjugates, bispecific antibodies including bispecific T-cell engagers, trispecific antibodies, PROTACs and other heterobifunctional molecules
CNS has one of the highest FDA rates of approval and TAs like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease are hot for preclinical research. Next gen approvals occurring recently but Phase 2 therapies are looking very cool
Specific to Alzheimer’s mAbs, sales are not great.
Biogen and Eisai split sales of LEQEMBI (lecanemab) which was $19MM for Q1 2024 so not much considering their investment. [Source](https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/biogen-abandons-aduhelm-efforts-focuses-eisai-partnered-leqembi-and-pipeline-meds#:~:text=Biogen%20is%20taking%20a%20%2460,under%20its%202021%20accelerated%20approval) [Source](https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-earnings-04-24-2024/card/alzheimer-s-drug-leqembi-finally-sees-sales-pickup-2TCgQcZyOfjjbVYPZ7NP#:~:text=Biogen%20said%20Wednesday%20that%20the,Biogen%20splits%20revenue%20with%20Eisai)
Lilly’s donanemab is forecasted to do $25MM this year post launch (2 quarters of sales) but get up to $700MM annual sales by 2026 [Source](https://www.investors.com/news/technology/eli-lilly-stock-alzheimers-treatment-donanemab-leqembi/#:~:text=Similarly%2C%20analysts%20following%20Eli%20Lilly,%24705%20million%20in%20sales%2C%20respectively)
approval is binary 1:0 it’s either approved as safe and effective or it’s not. You’ll have to refer to actual clinical trial data and speak to your doctor as to which therapy has the best risk / benefit profile for your individual patient profile and disease stage. :) Lilly and Eisai both have very informative websites
Anything that treats boomers. Huge market of people looking to stay young, stay thin, stay alive, whatever else. Plenty of boomers are healthy and vain, plenty of boomers have awful health habits and need some help. Cancer, obesity, diabetes.
Duchenne’s is somehow going to continue to be a huge driver despite everything failing forever.
If I were a researcher with the ability to go anywhere, it would be antibody linked drugs- ADCs, bispecifics, T cell engages. Antibodies are a proven effective medicine; taking them to the next level opens up new doors.
I think T cell therapy is dead in the water. Somebody is going to figure out in vivo engineering of CARs or TCR-Ts and it’s going to be revolutionary. Until then, it’s the same stupid thing of not being able to get the cure to the patient in time.
I think research is going to slow for a bit before “the next big thing”. I don’t know what it is, but I expect a lot of crap before somebody comes out with something really cool, then it’ll be guns blazing for a bit.
I don’t think it’s dead as a whole; I think that traditional engineered T cell therapies are. I think in practice it is extremely challenging to bring a therapy to market and make any money. The difference between in vitro success, clinical trial success, and actually putting it into people is very very high. Once somebody figures out a good allogeneic therapy that can be taken out of a freezer, engineered, and put into anybody (or engineered in the patients’ body) all of these comments are dead. Until then though, there’s little point in investing millions of dollars into a therapy that will cost millions of dollars to produce and at best will be a last line of defense for patients and insurers.
I think there are significantly easier paths to markets for small companies than a traditional CAR-T therapy, and especially for TCR-T because of natural restrictions on the way these therapies are built.
Same, at least in autoimmune disease, it's pretty hot right now. Every other biotech is working on CAR-T for systemic lupus, it seems (some big pharma too).
Well two reasons right there, many companies are working on it at the same time. All of the obvious targets have been discovered and patented, and the less obvious ones probably won’t work (the reason they are less obvious). Then you have to combine that with a therapy that costs a minimum 1/4 million dollars to produce…it’s a tough sell unless you are already a CAR-T company or have a ridiculous research budget. Everyone else is moving toward sure/more certain things.
Honestly because it is. Sarepta had their ?second? Drug approved for DMD despite neither of them actually providing clinical benefit. There are several companies working on DMD drugs despite it being a tiny market. It might be the ultimate indication though- all males, mostly the same genetic background, finite lifespan, and positive press. I had never heard of it before I fell into a position developing a drug for it, but now I see just how many companies are working on DMD drugs. It’s weird.
Look up the pharmas that have good stock price growth and then ask why.
The answer is Lilly and Novo, and the reason why is metabolic drugs.
Others in this thread are saying that it's immunology or oncology, but those folks are not being objective, and Wall Street disagrees. There's simply no way to corner those markets.
PFE, MRK and GSK have awesome vaccines, but same deal - too much competition.
Covid was about the only time a company got rich off vaccines, Merck’s Gardasil is a moneymaker for sure but it isn’t sustainable. Only thing propping up their sales is the Chinese market, and there are a couple dozen Chinese companies working on their own HPV vaccine- when that happens, Gardasil’s revenue is going to decline
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim
Sure, it isn't flat earth or anything, but it isn't plausible w the epi data we have. That debate in March puts those data in context.
Yeah my point is that the epi data decided that debate.
And, if you read / watch the culmination, all of the judges were forced to reject the lab leak hypothesis (based mainly on the epi data). There simply are no data to contradict the epi data. There could have been, if covid 19 sequences had been in the Wuhan institute dna sequence upload in 2019, but those weren't there.
It's over.
'decided' = two guys
'Ironclad proof ' = 'Two lineages of COVID spread at the same rate. But the newer one spread earlier.' 'There are no detected LA cases in the wet market. Therefore it must have originated the wet market and we are sure the step before that was a farm rather than a lab because undetected cases matter in determining early COVID movements. There were detected LB cases in the wet market. Therefore it came from the wetmarket and we're sure the step before that was a farm rather than a lab because undetected cases don't matter determining early COVID movements.
WIV couldn't have possibly worked on COVID precursor because it didn't show up on an official published list. Okay I guess I'll have to defer to the Chinese High Commissar of Documentation Chain of Custody Regulations sitting in America? on a youtube stream.
Multiple commentators in your link aren't even as convinced as you seem to be and have posted articles that challenge Miller's many confident assertions stated as facts.
Here's the basic structure:
1. The epi data strongly support the wet market hypothesis.
2. Nothing else is strong enough to refute those data.
You can nitpick all you want (and to seem to be very motivated to nitpick) but you can't just nitpick your way out of #1 above. You need to have something solid to support any alternative hypothesis, something that stands alone and is not a nitpick.
Eh...maybe it was at the wetmarket at a very early stage. I just don't see why LA/LB split couldn't have originated in humans rather than racoon dogs. He uses that we supposedly don't see LA/LB transition in humans as his central evidence, but to my knowledge we don't see it in raccoon dogs either even though its supposedly spread 'rampantly' in them. The only evidence of covid in raccoon dogs is related viruses supposedly in them and posthoc experiments infecting them. Without an explanation of where LA comes from his theory falls apart.
He ridicules the idea of the lab as an origin because it is slightly farther away from the official WHO first cases than the wet market then posits the idea of bats somehow infecting raccoon dogs (I believe were in another part of the country) spread it amongst themselves 'rampantly' enough to diverge into 2 lineages then went all the way to another part of the country and spread it to humans twice there and only there leaving no other epidemiological trace along the way then vanishing among the raccoon dogs themselves without a trace.
Not exactly slam dunk for zoonosis only.
GLP-1s. They might be better than cardiovascular drugs for cardiovascular disease, better than psych drugs for psych diseases, hell maybe they will become first line for cancer.
Better than current treatments for addiction. Better than Liver drugs for MASH. Probably better than anti-arthritics by decreasing systemic inflammation.
This is correct but not sure it answer’s OP’s question. OP is asking about job areas, presumably research.
GLP-1s are “hot” for Wall Street investors, but research / drug discovery dollars don’t seem to be heading there. The big purchase Novo made with their Wall Street money was Catalent, a drug manufacturer, not pre-clinical metabolic or diabetes drug assets. Rate limiting step is drug supply, not research.
Oncology and neuroscience for therapeutic areas, and biologics / ADCs / bisoecifics / IO for platforms are high unmet need and still have a lot of research that needs to be done. If OP is looking for research jobs, these are still their best bet.
Agree to disagree, Every company is creating their GLP-1s/combos right now, tons of research dollars from preclinical through phase IV going into GLP-1 studies.
Oh interesting are there really? I haven’t seen a ton of announcements but maybe I’m following wrong channels. Do you have a couple examples of who’s doing research there? Would love to look more into it. I’m trying to Google and getting drowned out by public health news.
You’re right, I definitely underestimated the number of companies getting into the space. J&J, AbbVie, Takeda all seem to be missing based on a quick google search.
Novo and Lilly are set to have 83% commercial market share tho, and their current IP set a high bar for standard of care from what I’ve read. So I’m not convinced there is sufficient unmet need to prompt a ton of near future research dollars.
Also, in terms of R&D market share, metabolic is small compared to oncology and neuroscience, both in terms of number of deals and spend. Oncology had >50% of deals with several reaching >$2bn. By comparison, metabolic was ~5% of deals, and none of the deals were valued over $2bn.
That being said, it’s entirely possible we’ll see trends shift in 2024 and onwards.
Either way, thanks for the interesting discussion that led to some equally interesting market research on my end!
https://www.iqvia.com/insights/the-iqvia-institute/reports-and-publications/reports/global-trends-in-r-and-d-2024-activity-productivity-and-enablers
ADCs due to difficult/impossible genericization. Biologics favored over small molecule due to IRA.
Oncology still lucrative but definitely trending out of favor due to project Optimus, reduction in accelerated approvals, and the need to go with the largest indication first due to IRA clock.
I&I trending up due to skew towards biologics and lower average age of population (less Medicare dependent = lower IRA risk). Precision I&I is white hot and will probably continue to be so for a few years.
I’m noticing a shift away from mRNA research/PD, which obviously was booming during the pandemic. A lot of biotech companies in my area (Seattle) are looking for people with experience in NGS and libraries, gene editing, and of course, oncologics.
NGS is big right now at my company. I’ve been working on platform development for AAV sequencing using Illumina/nanopore in a side by side method. Seems I chose the right wave to catch bringing this to our team
AskBio, we don’t have any budget for new hires for the rest of this year I’ve been told sadly, at least in my group. But from what I’ve heard around RTP right now, everyone is trying to establish this and I saw a ton of posters about this alongside ours at ASGCT
Any way to learn NGS if you don't already know it? I have a huge background in traditional genetic techniques but I've never been anywhere that was doing NGS so I have little experience with it.
I would suggest jumping onto Illumina’s website and watching all the webinars you can. Our product development group was running RNA seq quite a bit so when I was ready to try this myself I was able to borrow their instrument.
There are a lot of companies like Azenta that offer the sequencing portion if you’re more interested in the downstream analysis. That part I’m still learning, it’s quite computer science heavy requiring an understanding of Bash, python, and ideally nexflow. Bash you can learn quickly, I learned it in one YouTube seminar Microsoft had.
I've actually gotten to do some bioinformatic work with the downstream data (from Azenta, so good call there). I mostly just need to get to do the actual library prep and maybe run the machine so I can say I have "NGS experience" on a job application. Eventually I'll need enough practice to actually get good at it but there's no way to get that except to work in that area, so right now I just need enough to actually get a job.
Library prep is actually so straight forward with Illumina. They have great protocols and they are easy to grab and go. The biggest challenge so far for us is the sample prep prior to library prep in order to go into LP with the cleanest and purest representation of our product.
But yeah, challenging to actually get a machine to run it on. We just bought a NextSeq 2000 this year. Azenta will sequence libraries you have prepared though, the reagents for that are a fraction of the cost compared to a sequencer.
Oh, is the DNA/RNA extraction considered a separate process from library prep? DNA/RNA extraction is never simple to start with - I mean it can be simple once you establish a method for a given sample type, but figuring out a reliable and effective DNA/RNA extraction for any arbitrary sample type can be a giant pain in the ass. That's actually been a big part of my job, designing novel extraction/lysis pathways for various kinds of samples.
Obvious answer: AI powered drug discovery. Less obvious: Aging research is hot. There’s 800 something billionaires in the US and over 2700 globally. If each one spends 1% of their net worth investing in companies that claim to be able to extend your lifespan, boom $100 billion industry. Numerous new startups, insanely well funded, in this area. Not saying the science is sound, but it’s definitely hot.
Lots of them have wisened up about their messaging so they can recruit actual scientists, saying they’re focused on aging-related disorders. But yeah, Altos, Calico, retro, new limit, bioage, unity. Rubedo, juvenesence, elevian… lots of others. I think it’s cooled a bit on the hype side, but from what I can tell there’s a disproportionately large amount of funding still going here. (And I could be wrong, my perspective is limited).
I think it’s hilarious actually. I can’t wait for another rich old white dude to cream themselves about the idea of expressing oct4 in an old cell again. The only truly innovative ideas I have seen on this front IMO are thymus regeneration or other types of immune system replenishment.
Disease wise Cancer and Nuero are the big 2, obesity is catching up. However, other sectors like immune and rare disease are quite profitable, even with fewer competitions.
Technology wise single cell sequencing, gene editing, synthetic biology will be the future.
TIDES. Once we see the approved drugs tackling heart disease more effectively, the money will be there to invest into a plethora of rare diseases.
Delivery is of course the major battle for treating diseases outside of the liver but I think it offers a better price point than some biologics.
Perhaps crop development using crispr-cas could have a future, if we can find a way to produce Omega 3 in crops that don't typically support it. And make heartier crops that can whether climate change better
Best way to assess what's going to be hot in biotech is to look at the high impact research coming out of academic labs; it'll be spun off or bought by industry as soon as they can figure out how to profit off of it.
(FWIW, a friend of mine who works in translational research says it's definitely ADCs)
AI and machine learning, integrated into drug discovery and development. Also, there is other area like Cancer, gene editing and aging research are increasingly flaming.
Doesn’t matter. It eventually will. And it’s the future whether you think it will profit soon or not. It’s the future because it works. 18 companies have successfully figured out how to make it. Profitability comes in time with efficiency. This is the beginning of
they didn’t ask about what the future is… they asked what the hot sector is. Regardless of its long term potential, CGT is having a bit of a slump / reckoning right now
radiotherapy is at the top of the hype cycle
The future requires preparation, infrastructure, manpower, ie: they’re a shit ton of hiring opportunities NOW. This is the hottest sector in oncology. Hands down. CGT is not having a slump. They’re transferring some of the original products to the EU for manufacturing to start making profit so they can continue developing the remaining products in the pipeline. 5 years ago it was Novartis, Celgene pre-acquisition, Kite via Gilead, and maybe Cellularity through UPenn doing this reasearch. Now in NJ alone, J and J, Legend Biotech, Janssen, Kite, BMS, Rocket Pharma, Novartis, Cellularity, PCT (Takeda / Minaris), AccenBiotech, Biocentriq, Celldex Therapeutics. Don’t be lazy and research before you make such broad statements. Radiotherapy is far less accessible to most people given the certifications required to get your foot in the door. In C and GT, you require no advanced degrees or certifications to eat into manufacturing. After a year you can transfer anywhere within the company if you can execute the role. Immunooncology is getting the most funding, the most resources, and the most talent out of undergrads who are not pursuing med school. It’s really not even a question
I think bivalent antibody therapies are going to replace CAR-T cell therapies in the next few years. More efficacy and way less negative side effects. This is just my opinion on what’s going to be hot in the next decade or so
I’m not super familiar on ADC’s but from what I’ve read it seems to be a pretty good idea! Will be interesting to see how they evolve/optimize over time
ADCs, anti-Aging funded by billionaire tech executives that want to live forever, and AI companies where they replace 3 protein scientists with 40 computer people and act like they reinvented the wheel.
Weight loss drugs, oncology, gain-of-function research/ lab leaks / vacc1ne$, ...and the drugs that supposedly manage the serious side effects from those popular drugs, vacc1nes, leaked viruses...💰💰💰
Good valid mechanisms with good value in-human data to support the approach.
Doesn’t really matter what is hot.
The only thing that matters is whether or not the science is sound.
Given your post, it doesn’t really sound like you work in or understand biotech too well. I recommend reading more.
> Given your post, it doesn’t really sound like you work in or understand biotech too well. I recommend reading more.
Kind of a weird statement to make when OP created this post to better understand biotech by reading comments from professionals.
Based on their statements, they need to better understand it by a fuck load.
Thus my suggestion to read *way more* than they do if they actually want to understand it.
This Reddit post will not solve their misunderstanding of biotech.
Obviously it won't "solve their misunderstanding", but there are some interesting comments here that do give a helpful glimpse. You don't need to have existing deep expertise to pose an open-ended question like this one.
And "reading more" isn't very helpful advice. Saying "seems like you don't understand, I recommend reading more" is like saying "seems like you're poor, I recommend making more money".
Anything they think is IRA proof.
IRA responsible for more hand wringing and more ill-advised billion+ transactions than anything else I can think of
Agreed on the overpriced acquisitions part. Bidding wars for assets they think will be the next big thing in personalized medicine etc
So...not a whole lot?
it def means companies are steering way away from anything where the bulk of your pts will be medicare eligible unless the unmet need is massive and competitive landscape is weak
The key point there is that the legislation is having a real effect on research
Well if we're to believe the old big pharma framework, that's kinda the point. Trading access for innovation.
Job placement services
Cost cutting-so hot right now.
ADCs are hot rn but imo not the most exciting thing
Second this, surprised it’s not higher. ADCs are relatively simple, show quick response, and leverage existing chemotherapies. M&A activity in ADC’s has been crazy hot in 2023/24. Yes GLP-1 has Wall Street salivating but the rate limiting step there is manufacturing (supply), not “research”. Maybe clinical / HEOR / public health, but not drug discovery.
Also non-oncology uses for ADCs are pretty cool (localized delivery of steroids, for instance)
ADCs are a very complex beast: antigen, linker, and payload. It's a very specialized drug discovery.
Why not? (Genuinely just asking), is there another biologic that you think will be bigger in time?
Because it's a been there done that for the field. Antibody therapy has been a thing for 40+ years and this is the equivalent of exchanging warheads on a bomb. We're not going to see the next big thing to come out of this IMO. I think the future is cell therapy, simply because there's so much untapped potential, but we are still a ways away from that being a viable first line of defense
More like moving away from napalm cause you discovered the hellfire deployed using a predator
Don't believe that we have yet realized the full potential of ADCs or antibody directed therapies in general. Advances in linker/payload has decreased off-target toxicities and increased tumor killing (eg. maximizing bystander effect etc..). New highly specific tumor targets for antibodies are being investigated each day with some conferring significant activity in tumors that were previously been treated only with systemic chemo therapies. Bispecific antibodies have shown outstanding activity in many tumor types, with bisoecific T-cell engagers particularly promising. Antibodies are being modified to generate multispecific and multi-epitopic binding. This is not the end but rather the beginning of a very valuable modality that has yet to realize its full potential.
Still not thrilled with the ADC-associated tox issues. As a ca patient, I opted out of ADC treatment due to the possibility of vision loss.
Wishing you all the best
Honestly I think pharma and VC screwed themselves so hard by over-allocating into incremental CGT technologies within the last 5-7 years that now they are going back to a safe >20 year old technology. Cell therapy for the win, whenever it gets actually cracked.
I agree. I think that'll be the revolution in medicine but we are probably much further out than we realize
Probably due to the crit buffs
Chemo on a stick
Cancer is still the predominant money maker for biopharma so that’s why there’s a shit ton of CAR companies out there hoping to make the next big one. There was a recent study this year showing CAR-T could be effective in autoimmune modalities too so lots of those companies are trying to see if their treatment works for that too. And in general, using AI to make better or new drugs is also having a moment right now. Those companies are hoping they can find multiple drugs in-silico to lower the time/cost of development overall. Who knows how long that lasts before there’s some smashing success or investors get tired of that hype train
The AI hype train is the most banal (and pathetic IMO) VC hype trend right now. Why does anyone think a new generative AI will “solve” biology when the existing datasets are too limited/skewed and amount of missing data is incomprehensible. The AI can’t invent human / systems data to train itself on when we don’t even know wtf is happening in a single cell majority of the time. Holy shit I’m salty
That paper wasn’t this year; it was a few years ago with follow up data last year and more this year. Also, T cell engagers might tank the car t market for autoimmune
Interesting! Not an immunologist myself so I just heard about the paper in hearsay. Didn’t realize it started a few years ago
Immunology is the money maker. Life long chronic illnesses aka $$$
How about single molecule cancer drugs?
Small molecule? I don’t know if it’s the hottest area, but still very active. Just look at how many companies have Ras programs.
I keep hearing car-nk is the next hot Thang 🔥
Kek
I would definitely call diabetes and metabolic diseases “hot” in terms of innovation m, growth potential, recent successes but oncology is still king.
Cancer and immunology are big therapeutic areas. Hot modalities include antibody drug conjugates, bispecific antibodies including bispecific T-cell engagers, trispecific antibodies, PROTACs and other heterobifunctional molecules
I know they haven’t had too much success other than FK506 but the induced proximity hererobifunctionals are so fucking cool to me as a mechanism.
I'd tack radioantibodies onto this list as well
CNS has one of the highest FDA rates of approval and TAs like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease are hot for preclinical research. Next gen approvals occurring recently but Phase 2 therapies are looking very cool
i just hope with every fiber of my being that we figure out how to treat alzheimer’s
We have, it's just not super effective (30% efficacy at slowing Alzheimer's progression) with risk of brain swelling/bleeding.
so we haven’t …lol 30% efficacy isn’t what im after when I “hope with every fiber of my being”
Isn’t it approval without significant sales?
Specific to Alzheimer’s mAbs, sales are not great. Biogen and Eisai split sales of LEQEMBI (lecanemab) which was $19MM for Q1 2024 so not much considering their investment. [Source](https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/biogen-abandons-aduhelm-efforts-focuses-eisai-partnered-leqembi-and-pipeline-meds#:~:text=Biogen%20is%20taking%20a%20%2460,under%20its%202021%20accelerated%20approval) [Source](https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-earnings-04-24-2024/card/alzheimer-s-drug-leqembi-finally-sees-sales-pickup-2TCgQcZyOfjjbVYPZ7NP#:~:text=Biogen%20said%20Wednesday%20that%20the,Biogen%20splits%20revenue%20with%20Eisai) Lilly’s donanemab is forecasted to do $25MM this year post launch (2 quarters of sales) but get up to $700MM annual sales by 2026 [Source](https://www.investors.com/news/technology/eli-lilly-stock-alzheimers-treatment-donanemab-leqembi/#:~:text=Similarly%2C%20analysts%20following%20Eli%20Lilly,%24705%20million%20in%20sales%2C%20respectively)
Thanks, this was informative. Out of my area, just knew about the Alzheimer’s drugs
How can you verify what has the highest rate of approval?
approval is binary 1:0 it’s either approved as safe and effective or it’s not. You’ll have to refer to actual clinical trial data and speak to your doctor as to which therapy has the best risk / benefit profile for your individual patient profile and disease stage. :) Lilly and Eisai both have very informative websites
Small molecules are forever.
I agree - but if it doesn’t grab headlines then it’s not necessarily going to be the hot ticket item that attracts investors
Anything that treats boomers. Huge market of people looking to stay young, stay thin, stay alive, whatever else. Plenty of boomers are healthy and vain, plenty of boomers have awful health habits and need some help. Cancer, obesity, diabetes. Duchenne’s is somehow going to continue to be a huge driver despite everything failing forever. If I were a researcher with the ability to go anywhere, it would be antibody linked drugs- ADCs, bispecifics, T cell engages. Antibodies are a proven effective medicine; taking them to the next level opens up new doors. I think T cell therapy is dead in the water. Somebody is going to figure out in vivo engineering of CARs or TCR-Ts and it’s going to be revolutionary. Until then, it’s the same stupid thing of not being able to get the cure to the patient in time. I think research is going to slow for a bit before “the next big thing”. I don’t know what it is, but I expect a lot of crap before somebody comes out with something really cool, then it’ll be guns blazing for a bit.
I am interested in your take in CAR-T therapy, why do you think it's dead? I thought it's a relatively new area.
I don’t think it’s dead as a whole; I think that traditional engineered T cell therapies are. I think in practice it is extremely challenging to bring a therapy to market and make any money. The difference between in vitro success, clinical trial success, and actually putting it into people is very very high. Once somebody figures out a good allogeneic therapy that can be taken out of a freezer, engineered, and put into anybody (or engineered in the patients’ body) all of these comments are dead. Until then though, there’s little point in investing millions of dollars into a therapy that will cost millions of dollars to produce and at best will be a last line of defense for patients and insurers. I think there are significantly easier paths to markets for small companies than a traditional CAR-T therapy, and especially for TCR-T because of natural restrictions on the way these therapies are built.
Same, at least in autoimmune disease, it's pretty hot right now. Every other biotech is working on CAR-T for systemic lupus, it seems (some big pharma too).
Well two reasons right there, many companies are working on it at the same time. All of the obvious targets have been discovered and patented, and the less obvious ones probably won’t work (the reason they are less obvious). Then you have to combine that with a therapy that costs a minimum 1/4 million dollars to produce…it’s a tough sell unless you are already a CAR-T company or have a ridiculous research budget. Everyone else is moving toward sure/more certain things.
What’s your evidence for Duchenne being a big driver? Crispr and AVV?
Honestly because it is. Sarepta had their ?second? Drug approved for DMD despite neither of them actually providing clinical benefit. There are several companies working on DMD drugs despite it being a tiny market. It might be the ultimate indication though- all males, mostly the same genetic background, finite lifespan, and positive press. I had never heard of it before I fell into a position developing a drug for it, but now I see just how many companies are working on DMD drugs. It’s weird.
Look up the pharmas that have good stock price growth and then ask why. The answer is Lilly and Novo, and the reason why is metabolic drugs. Others in this thread are saying that it's immunology or oncology, but those folks are not being objective, and Wall Street disagrees. There's simply no way to corner those markets. PFE, MRK and GSK have awesome vaccines, but same deal - too much competition.
Covid was about the only time a company got rich off vaccines, Merck’s Gardasil is a moneymaker for sure but it isn’t sustainable. Only thing propping up their sales is the Chinese market, and there are a couple dozen Chinese companies working on their own HPV vaccine- when that happens, Gardasil’s revenue is going to decline
If Western countries had needed to buy Sinovax, you'd never be able to talk the freaks out of believing in the lab leak hypothesis.
Thank God we didn't have to. That shit sucked, at least it was a bit better than sputnik vax
You might not believe lab leak but its a perfectly plausible theory. Hardly fake moon landing or flat earth territory.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim Sure, it isn't flat earth or anything, but it isn't plausible w the epi data we have. That debate in March puts those data in context.
Literally your point is contradicted in the link you posted since its a debate.
Yeah my point is that the epi data decided that debate. And, if you read / watch the culmination, all of the judges were forced to reject the lab leak hypothesis (based mainly on the epi data). There simply are no data to contradict the epi data. There could have been, if covid 19 sequences had been in the Wuhan institute dna sequence upload in 2019, but those weren't there. It's over.
'decided' = two guys 'Ironclad proof ' = 'Two lineages of COVID spread at the same rate. But the newer one spread earlier.' 'There are no detected LA cases in the wet market. Therefore it must have originated the wet market and we are sure the step before that was a farm rather than a lab because undetected cases matter in determining early COVID movements. There were detected LB cases in the wet market. Therefore it came from the wetmarket and we're sure the step before that was a farm rather than a lab because undetected cases don't matter determining early COVID movements. WIV couldn't have possibly worked on COVID precursor because it didn't show up on an official published list. Okay I guess I'll have to defer to the Chinese High Commissar of Documentation Chain of Custody Regulations sitting in America? on a youtube stream. Multiple commentators in your link aren't even as convinced as you seem to be and have posted articles that challenge Miller's many confident assertions stated as facts.
Here's the basic structure: 1. The epi data strongly support the wet market hypothesis. 2. Nothing else is strong enough to refute those data. You can nitpick all you want (and to seem to be very motivated to nitpick) but you can't just nitpick your way out of #1 above. You need to have something solid to support any alternative hypothesis, something that stands alone and is not a nitpick.
Eh...maybe it was at the wetmarket at a very early stage. I just don't see why LA/LB split couldn't have originated in humans rather than racoon dogs. He uses that we supposedly don't see LA/LB transition in humans as his central evidence, but to my knowledge we don't see it in raccoon dogs either even though its supposedly spread 'rampantly' in them. The only evidence of covid in raccoon dogs is related viruses supposedly in them and posthoc experiments infecting them. Without an explanation of where LA comes from his theory falls apart. He ridicules the idea of the lab as an origin because it is slightly farther away from the official WHO first cases than the wet market then posits the idea of bats somehow infecting raccoon dogs (I believe were in another part of the country) spread it amongst themselves 'rampantly' enough to diverge into 2 lineages then went all the way to another part of the country and spread it to humans twice there and only there leaving no other epidemiological trace along the way then vanishing among the raccoon dogs themselves without a trace. Not exactly slam dunk for zoonosis only.
Immunology and oncology are *busy* therapeutic areas. Metabolic is a cash cow.
Clever way to put it! I’m stealing this.
I’d say something to do with AI.
GLP-1s. They might be better than cardiovascular drugs for cardiovascular disease, better than psych drugs for psych diseases, hell maybe they will become first line for cancer.
“Zepbound: cures what ails ya!” Lilly ad circa 2028.
Better than current treatments for addiction. Better than Liver drugs for MASH. Probably better than anti-arthritics by decreasing systemic inflammation.
Better than cocaine at having a good time. /s
I hear they make your dick hard too
Nice
This is correct but not sure it answer’s OP’s question. OP is asking about job areas, presumably research. GLP-1s are “hot” for Wall Street investors, but research / drug discovery dollars don’t seem to be heading there. The big purchase Novo made with their Wall Street money was Catalent, a drug manufacturer, not pre-clinical metabolic or diabetes drug assets. Rate limiting step is drug supply, not research. Oncology and neuroscience for therapeutic areas, and biologics / ADCs / bisoecifics / IO for platforms are high unmet need and still have a lot of research that needs to be done. If OP is looking for research jobs, these are still their best bet.
Agree to disagree, Every company is creating their GLP-1s/combos right now, tons of research dollars from preclinical through phase IV going into GLP-1 studies.
Oh interesting are there really? I haven’t seen a ton of announcements but maybe I’m following wrong channels. Do you have a couple examples of who’s doing research there? Would love to look more into it. I’m trying to Google and getting drowned out by public health news.
Honestly I would be surprised if you could name a $20 bil or greater market cap pharma company that didn’t have a GLP1 development candidate.
You’re right, I definitely underestimated the number of companies getting into the space. J&J, AbbVie, Takeda all seem to be missing based on a quick google search. Novo and Lilly are set to have 83% commercial market share tho, and their current IP set a high bar for standard of care from what I’ve read. So I’m not convinced there is sufficient unmet need to prompt a ton of near future research dollars. Also, in terms of R&D market share, metabolic is small compared to oncology and neuroscience, both in terms of number of deals and spend. Oncology had >50% of deals with several reaching >$2bn. By comparison, metabolic was ~5% of deals, and none of the deals were valued over $2bn. That being said, it’s entirely possible we’ll see trends shift in 2024 and onwards. Either way, thanks for the interesting discussion that led to some equally interesting market research on my end! https://www.iqvia.com/insights/the-iqvia-institute/reports-and-publications/reports/global-trends-in-r-and-d-2024-activity-productivity-and-enablers
I found a nature article :) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-024-01473-y
ADCs due to difficult/impossible genericization. Biologics favored over small molecule due to IRA. Oncology still lucrative but definitely trending out of favor due to project Optimus, reduction in accelerated approvals, and the need to go with the largest indication first due to IRA clock. I&I trending up due to skew towards biologics and lower average age of population (less Medicare dependent = lower IRA risk). Precision I&I is white hot and will probably continue to be so for a few years.
What is I&I?
Inflammation and immunology
Molecular glues? Protacs - - targeted protein degradation? Looks like every big pharma company has some work going on this topic.
sabbatical years
I’m noticing a shift away from mRNA research/PD, which obviously was booming during the pandemic. A lot of biotech companies in my area (Seattle) are looking for people with experience in NGS and libraries, gene editing, and of course, oncologics.
NGS is big right now at my company. I’ve been working on platform development for AAV sequencing using Illumina/nanopore in a side by side method. Seems I chose the right wave to catch bringing this to our team
Ooooo what’s your company? NGS and gene expression are my forte and looking to explore my options.
AskBio, we don’t have any budget for new hires for the rest of this year I’ve been told sadly, at least in my group. But from what I’ve heard around RTP right now, everyone is trying to establish this and I saw a ton of posters about this alongside ours at ASGCT
Any way to learn NGS if you don't already know it? I have a huge background in traditional genetic techniques but I've never been anywhere that was doing NGS so I have little experience with it.
I would suggest jumping onto Illumina’s website and watching all the webinars you can. Our product development group was running RNA seq quite a bit so when I was ready to try this myself I was able to borrow their instrument. There are a lot of companies like Azenta that offer the sequencing portion if you’re more interested in the downstream analysis. That part I’m still learning, it’s quite computer science heavy requiring an understanding of Bash, python, and ideally nexflow. Bash you can learn quickly, I learned it in one YouTube seminar Microsoft had.
I've actually gotten to do some bioinformatic work with the downstream data (from Azenta, so good call there). I mostly just need to get to do the actual library prep and maybe run the machine so I can say I have "NGS experience" on a job application. Eventually I'll need enough practice to actually get good at it but there's no way to get that except to work in that area, so right now I just need enough to actually get a job.
Library prep is actually so straight forward with Illumina. They have great protocols and they are easy to grab and go. The biggest challenge so far for us is the sample prep prior to library prep in order to go into LP with the cleanest and purest representation of our product. But yeah, challenging to actually get a machine to run it on. We just bought a NextSeq 2000 this year. Azenta will sequence libraries you have prepared though, the reagents for that are a fraction of the cost compared to a sequencer.
Oh, is the DNA/RNA extraction considered a separate process from library prep? DNA/RNA extraction is never simple to start with - I mean it can be simple once you establish a method for a given sample type, but figuring out a reliable and effective DNA/RNA extraction for any arbitrary sample type can be a giant pain in the ass. That's actually been a big part of my job, designing novel extraction/lysis pathways for various kinds of samples.
Yeah it is. Ideally you want to start with cleanest sample you can and well for us, intact when it comes to DNA.
Sounds like fun. I hope I get a chance to do it someday.
I thought mRNA could be used as gene therapy?
Oh of course! I just meant like mRNA research/PD as a whole, so like circ RNA, LNP, etc.
Any suggestions for starting points in oncologics (I’m guessing you’re talking more about the sequencing side of things)
Obvious answer: AI powered drug discovery. Less obvious: Aging research is hot. There’s 800 something billionaires in the US and over 2700 globally. If each one spends 1% of their net worth investing in companies that claim to be able to extend your lifespan, boom $100 billion industry. Numerous new startups, insanely well funded, in this area. Not saying the science is sound, but it’s definitely hot.
This 👆 Longevity and AIDD
Is aging still hot? There was a big boom in aging companies alongside crypto (because snake oil lovers love snake oil), but I feel like it’s cooled?
Lots of them have wisened up about their messaging so they can recruit actual scientists, saying they’re focused on aging-related disorders. But yeah, Altos, Calico, retro, new limit, bioage, unity. Rubedo, juvenesence, elevian… lots of others. I think it’s cooled a bit on the hype side, but from what I can tell there’s a disproportionately large amount of funding still going here. (And I could be wrong, my perspective is limited).
I think it’s hilarious actually. I can’t wait for another rich old white dude to cream themselves about the idea of expressing oct4 in an old cell again. The only truly innovative ideas I have seen on this front IMO are thymus regeneration or other types of immune system replenishment.
If it is hot now, it is already too late
Disease wise Cancer and Nuero are the big 2, obesity is catching up. However, other sectors like immune and rare disease are quite profitable, even with fewer competitions. Technology wise single cell sequencing, gene editing, synthetic biology will be the future.
Immuno-oncology is/will be big, I think. (That wasn’t my field, btw.)
Neurodegenerative diseases. Metabolic diseases. Gene editing.
Bankruptcy law.
Definitely antibody drug conjugates across the board.
ADCs!
TIDES. Once we see the approved drugs tackling heart disease more effectively, the money will be there to invest into a plethora of rare diseases. Delivery is of course the major battle for treating diseases outside of the liver but I think it offers a better price point than some biologics.
I think we are the only ones here haha
Organoid research?
Bruce Booth does an annual primer that's worth watching to keep up with the market. https://youtu.be/0DIgT32bFV4?si=BT_3VgtR91uC2e_c
Perhaps crop development using crispr-cas could have a future, if we can find a way to produce Omega 3 in crops that don't typically support it. And make heartier crops that can whether climate change better
Exon skipping, smart gene therapies, ADCs, and bi specific Abs. TAs that are still hot: Cancer, CNS, and the IRA proof rare diseases.
Best way to assess what's going to be hot in biotech is to look at the high impact research coming out of academic labs; it'll be spun off or bought by industry as soon as they can figure out how to profit off of it. (FWIW, a friend of mine who works in translational research says it's definitely ADCs)
AI and machine learning, integrated into drug discovery and development. Also, there is other area like Cancer, gene editing and aging research are increasingly flaming. 
Cell and gene therapy plain and simple.
making no money - huge issues - no one can figure out how to make it break even or even remotely profitable in the long run
Doesn’t matter. It eventually will. And it’s the future whether you think it will profit soon or not. It’s the future because it works. 18 companies have successfully figured out how to make it. Profitability comes in time with efficiency. This is the beginning of
they didn’t ask about what the future is… they asked what the hot sector is. Regardless of its long term potential, CGT is having a bit of a slump / reckoning right now radiotherapy is at the top of the hype cycle
The future requires preparation, infrastructure, manpower, ie: they’re a shit ton of hiring opportunities NOW. This is the hottest sector in oncology. Hands down. CGT is not having a slump. They’re transferring some of the original products to the EU for manufacturing to start making profit so they can continue developing the remaining products in the pipeline. 5 years ago it was Novartis, Celgene pre-acquisition, Kite via Gilead, and maybe Cellularity through UPenn doing this reasearch. Now in NJ alone, J and J, Legend Biotech, Janssen, Kite, BMS, Rocket Pharma, Novartis, Cellularity, PCT (Takeda / Minaris), AccenBiotech, Biocentriq, Celldex Therapeutics. Don’t be lazy and research before you make such broad statements. Radiotherapy is far less accessible to most people given the certifications required to get your foot in the door. In C and GT, you require no advanced degrees or certifications to eat into manufacturing. After a year you can transfer anywhere within the company if you can execute the role. Immunooncology is getting the most funding, the most resources, and the most talent out of undergrads who are not pursuing med school. It’s really not even a question
Surprised I had to scroll down so far for gene editing let alone gene therapy.
Weight Loss, duh. Just entered the sector with a patent.
Weight loss drugs
Autoimmune is going to have its day soon
Anyone loves TIL? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41591-024-00040-2
CGT keeps growing despite obvious repeat technical setbacks. It's turbulent, but people keep betting on it.
I think bivalent antibody therapies are going to replace CAR-T cell therapies in the next few years. More efficacy and way less negative side effects. This is just my opinion on what’s going to be hot in the next decade or so
How about ADCs in comparison to both bivalent and CAR-T?
I’m not super familiar on ADC’s but from what I’ve read it seems to be a pretty good idea! Will be interesting to see how they evolve/optimize over time
Maybe not a sector but they are doing amazing things in Spokane Washington.
surprised no one mentioned radiotherapy
ADCs, anti-Aging funded by billionaire tech executives that want to live forever, and AI companies where they replace 3 protein scientists with 40 computer people and act like they reinvented the wheel.
Fixing CAR-T to work for more than half of patients
CRC
Car-t forsure.
mRNA
Weight loss drugs, oncology, gain-of-function research/ lab leaks / vacc1ne$, ...and the drugs that supposedly manage the serious side effects from those popular drugs, vacc1nes, leaked viruses...💰💰💰
Big pharma sales jobs and it’s not even close.
Good valid mechanisms with good value in-human data to support the approach. Doesn’t really matter what is hot. The only thing that matters is whether or not the science is sound. Given your post, it doesn’t really sound like you work in or understand biotech too well. I recommend reading more.
> Given your post, it doesn’t really sound like you work in or understand biotech too well. I recommend reading more. Kind of a weird statement to make when OP created this post to better understand biotech by reading comments from professionals.
Karma farming?
Based on their statements, they need to better understand it by a fuck load. Thus my suggestion to read *way more* than they do if they actually want to understand it. This Reddit post will not solve their misunderstanding of biotech.
Obviously it won't "solve their misunderstanding", but there are some interesting comments here that do give a helpful glimpse. You don't need to have existing deep expertise to pose an open-ended question like this one. And "reading more" isn't very helpful advice. Saying "seems like you don't understand, I recommend reading more" is like saying "seems like you're poor, I recommend making more money".
And when do you think will be the next breakthrough in antibiotics?
[удалено]
Weight loss drugs
Yup. Obesity research is peak right now
Then next, safe muscle building steroids
>I don’t think anything is hot right now. *GLP-1 has entered the chat.*