CONTENTS

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

8 OVERALL TRENDS
8 Bibliography

10 R&D INVESTMENT TRENDS
10 Overall R&D Investment trends
12 Peer set R&D investment trends
19 R&D productivity
22 Bibliography

23 BIG PHARMA LICENSING TRENDS
23 Alliance volume and value
25 In-licensing and out-licensing
26 Phase trends
28 Therapy area trends
36 Bibliography

37 REVENUE EXTERNALIZATION TRENDS
37 Higher volume of unpartnered drugs, but partnered candidates are growing faster
38 Externalized revenue growth due to M&A, co-developed drugs, and acquired products
41 Peer set externalized revenue trends
44 Higher average per-drug revenue expected for externalized products
47 Bibliography

48 APPENDIX
48 Scope
49 Methodology

LIST OF FIGURES
10 Figure 1: Big increase in R&D spending historically, but slight decline in forecast period, 2006–20
11 Figure 2: Revenues increasing, but R&D as proportion slightly decreases, 2006–20
12 Figure 3: Phase status of pipeline stability, with exception of Phase I, 2011 versus 2016
13 Figure 4: Big Pharma outspends Mid Pharma and Japan Pharma in R&D, 2006–20
13 Figure 5: Average R&D spend per peer set company, 2006–20
14 Figure 6: Roche has been Big Pharma’s biggest R&D spender, 2006–14
15 Figure 7: Roche also leads the forecast period, but most companies will experience declining R&D spend, 2015–20
16 Figure 8: Mid Pharma prescription revenue and R&D spending growing at faster rates than other peer sets, 2006–20
17 Figure 9: Allergan and Celgene stand out in Mid Pharma R&D spend, 2006–20
18 Figure 10: Japan Pharma R&D spending to decline over forecast period, 2006–20
19 Figure 11: Takeda is driver behind R&D growth in Japan Pharma, 2006–20
20 Figure 12: R&D productivity: new product launches, 2011–15
21 Figure 13: R&D productivity: ROI index by peer set, 2011–15
22 Figure 14: R&D productivity: ROI index by company, 2011–15
24 Figure 15: Big Pharma deals are increasing, with 2015 as a possible outlier, 2012–16
25 Figure 16: Licensing value took a dive in 2016, 2012–16
26 Figure 17: Healthy mixture of in-licensing and out-licensing, 2012–16
27 Figure 18: Big Pharma in-licensing deal volume by phase, 2012–16
28 Figure 19: Preclinical and Phase I in-licensing deals increase, 2012–16
29 Figure 20: Oncology dominates Big Pharma deal volume, 2012–16
30 Figure 21: Oncology also significantly overshadows in deal value, 2012–16
31 Figure 22: Big Pharma and Mid Pharma immuno-oncology deal volume, 2012–16
32 Figure 23: Big Pharma and Mid Pharma immuno-oncology deal value, 2012–16
33 Figure 24: Immuno-oncology deal-making landscape includes multiple players, 2012–16
34 Figure 25: Immuno-oncology deals are targeting a wide variety of indications, 2012–16
35 Figure 26: Combinations are driving immuno-oncology deals, 2012–16
36 Figure 27: PD-L1 target significantly represented in immuno-oncology collaborations, 2012–16
37 Figure 28: Consistently more unpartnered drugs in pipeline, 2011 versus 2016
38 Figure 29: Proportion of partnered and unpartnered drugs varies at peer set level, 2011 versus 2016
39 Figure 30: Revenue segmentations
40 Figure 31: Externally sourced products are increasingly representing more in revenue, 2005–24
40 Figure 32: External R&D revenue grew at a faster rate than internal R&D, 2005–24
41 Figure 33: Co-developed and acquired drugs are driving growth, 2005–24
42 Figure 34: Proportion of external sales to shift for some Big Pharma companies, 2005–24
43 Figure 35: About half of Mid Pharma companies to see smaller proportion of external sales, 2005–24
44 Figure 36: Most Japan Pharma companies will increase proportions of external revenue, 2005–24
45 Figure 37: Average per-drug revenue is higher for external than internal R&D products, 2005–24
46 Figure 38: Average external per-drug revenue by peer set, 2005–24
47 Figure 39: Average internal per-drug revenue by peer set, 2005–24

LIST OF TABLES
49 Table 1: Datamonitor Healthcare peer sets*