To build investor confidence in the high-risk neuroscience field, Neurocrine employs a dual strategy. It highlights its own proven track record while simultaneously de-risking its pipeline by targeting biological pathways already validated by competitors, aiming to create superior, best-in-class medicines rather than pursuing unproven science.
Related Insights
Voyager CEO Al Sandrock outlines a focused strategy: remain specialists in neurology, but broaden the therapeutic modalities (gene therapy, proteins, oligonucleotides). This allows them to pursue well-validated CNS targets that are considered "undruggable" by traditional small molecules, which have historically been the only option for crossing the blood-brain barrier.
Recursion's CEO outlines a two-pronged pipeline strategy. The first prong uses phenomics to uncover novel biological insights for new targets, like their FAP program. The second uses their AI-driven small molecule design platform to improve the therapeutic index for known but historically 'hard-to-drug' targets, like CDK7. This balanced portfolio approach de-risks development by leveraging different strengths of their end-to-end platform.
When a competitor (Beijing) presented similar positive data for its BTK degrader, the CEO of Neurix viewed it as a positive reinforcement for the entire drug class. In a novel field, parallel success from independent companies de-risks the underlying biological mechanism for investors, partners, and clinicians.
To maintain a competitive edge, BridgeBio only pursues programs that are either "first in class" (a novel treatment where none exists) or "best in class" (a demonstrably superior option, like an oral pill versus a daily injection). This strict strategic filter is the core of their entire R&D pipeline selection process.
Neurocrine's move from neuroscience into obesity is not a random leap but a calculated pivot. The company is leveraging its deep, historical expertise in the CRF biological system, a shared mechanism between the fields, to de-risk its entry into a new, high-growth therapeutic area.
Facing industry-wide skepticism in 2010, Alnylam implemented a highly disciplined R&D strategy. They focused exclusively on targets that met strict criteria: liver expression (where delivery worked), human genetic validation (to de-risk biology), and an early biomarker. This strategic focus was key to their survival and success.
Apogee built its strategy around known biological mechanisms, focusing innovation solely on antibody engineering. This allowed them to de-risk assets early and efficiently (e.g., proving half-life in healthy volunteers). This clear, stepwise reduction of risk proved highly attractive to capital markets, enabling them to raise significant funds for late-stage development.
Neurocrine mitigates the high risk of its late-stage psychiatry programs, which have uncertain outcomes until Phase 3, by investing in an obesity asset. This program offers the ability to see clear efficacy signals in early Phase 1B trials, providing faster data for decision-making and balancing portfolio risk and cost.
Neurocrine's strategy with its M4 agonist hinges on achieving superior safety and tolerability through high selectivity. The company believes that for chronic psychiatric disorders, long-term patient adherence—driven by fewer side effects—is a more critical factor for commercial success than marginal gains in efficacy.
A decade ago, Neurocrine made the difficult decision to pause development of a promising CRF2 agonist. This ruthless prioritization freed up essential capital and focus to successfully develop what became INGREZZA, their blockbuster drug, demonstrating a long-term strategy of sacrificing a good opportunity for a great one.