0:00

The business of biotech is produced by

0:02

LifeScienceConnect and its community

0:04

of learning , solving and sourcing

0:06

resources for biopharma decision

0:08

makers . If you're working on biologics

0:11

process development and manufacturing challenges

0:13

, you need to swing by bioprocessonlinecom

0:16

. If you're trying to stay ahead

0:18

of the Cell or Gene Therapy curve , visit

0:20

cellenginecom . When it's time

0:22

to map out your clinical course , let

0:25

clinicalleadercom help , and

0:27

if optimizing outsourcing decisions

0:29

is what you're after , check out outsourcepharmacom

0:32

. We're LifeScienceConnect and we're

0:34

here to help . I

0:40

try not to play favorites but within

0:42

minutes of our conversation starting , Dr

0:45

. Gavin Samuels became one of my

0:47

favorite guests on the business of biotech

0:49

. Gavin , an MD

0:51

, was an intensive care physician

0:53

before he joined industry . Hard

0:55

to wrap my mind around , but he joined industry because

0:57

he got bored doing that , bored

0:59

running an intensive care unit . Can

1:02

you imagine I'm Matt Pillar . This

1:04

is the business of biotech and I had the absolute

1:06

pleasure to learn about and learn from

1:08

Dr Samuels , who's now chief business

1:10

officer at CinRx when

1:13

we sat down in San Francisco to record this

1:15

episode . Beyond his fascinating

1:17

career journey , we discussed deal making

1:19

. In a tumultuous market , the unique

1:22

buyer seller position that CinRx

1:24

finds itself in , what healthy

1:26

tension between drug development and business

1:28

development looks like , what

1:31

a responsible obesity therapeutic

1:33

looks like , and a whole lot more . It's

1:35

a good one . Let's give it a listen , and

1:37

I learned that before you

1:41

joined CinRx in 2022

1:43

, you were in Lons a set of strategy and

1:45

growth initiatives . You've

1:48

held major roles , obviously

1:50

there Pfizer , a

1:53

host of other smaller biotechs what

1:56

led you I guess sort of a two-part question what

1:58

led you away from big bio

2:01

and how did you land at CinRx

2:03

?

2:04

Well , I think one

2:06

way of explaining it is a little bit like the

2:08

little Red Riding Hood story the

2:12

one bit was too big , the other

2:14

one was too small and the third one was

2:16

just right . Okay , big

2:18

Pharma was an excellent place to

2:20

learn the industry and I

2:22

was an advisor and then a tether . And

2:25

if you want to learn how

2:27

to do drug

2:29

development , those are great places . Both of them

2:31

are great places to learn , but they

2:33

massive organizations

2:35

, which means the bureaucracy and the process

2:38

is challenging

2:40

. Everything takes a long time

2:42

in its big teams

2:45

and innovation

2:47

is difficult in big organizations

2:50

. So that

2:53

was one component of my career

2:55

education , if you like . And then there's

2:57

a lot to be learned by a very small

2:59

, nimble biotech as well where

3:01

decision making is very quick and

3:04

things have to run

3:07

according to a shoestring budget

3:09

often and one

3:11

can learn where you can

3:13

trim down on

3:15

certain aspects the

3:18

challenge in a small biotech company is

3:20

there's never enough money , so

3:22

trimming becomes too

3:25

much sometimes . Yeah

3:28

, and you start cutting corners where

3:30

corners shouldn't be cut , and I think CinRx

3:32

is the right size

3:35

institution . It's got a lot of what

3:37

big pharma has to offer , meaning

3:39

everything is done properly , there's

3:42

no corners cut , but

3:44

at the same time you have the rapid decision making

3:47

and the innovation which allows

3:49

for a very efficient and effective

3:51

drug development process . It's kind

3:54

of the best of both worlds , which is where

3:56

I personally feel most comfortable

3:59

and where I can feel , from

4:01

a personality and an experience perspective

4:03

, I'm able to make the most contribution

4:06

in that science organization . Yeah

4:08

.

4:08

That was the next follow-up question

4:11

. I had for you on that was like what do you think

4:13

it is that's different about someone

4:15

who you know

4:17

? It's not an uncommon refrain , right to

4:19

start in a big bio and then to move to a smaller

4:21

bio . Yeah , like you said , you found sort

4:23

of a happy medium , but

4:26

a lot of people land in a place like Pfizer

4:29

or Lonza . They stay there for their

4:31

entire career . They can't .

4:32

And they can't . What do you ?

4:34

think it takes differently within someone who

4:36

says you know what , I want to take the risk

4:39

of agility in

4:41

a leadership position .

4:42

Yes . So I think it

4:44

comes down to a large extent to

4:46

one's personality , which in

4:48

turn informs on one's risk

4:51

tolerance . Certainly

4:53

, at when I was a Pfizer there was the

4:55

possibility of a very long career

4:59

trajectory that

5:01

was not very stressful

5:03

at all and very comfortable in terms of

5:06

resources and large teams

5:08

where everyone had their area

5:10

of expertise . But

5:13

I've always been someone who enjoys

5:15

a challenge and enjoys learning something

5:18

new , and I'm very comfortable when I

5:20

don't exactly know how

5:23

I'm supposed to do the thing , the task

5:25

that's in front of me , and

5:27

to kind of stretching myself to figure

5:30

out a solution . So it's not so common

5:32

in a big pharma company to do

5:34

that . So I think the single

5:36

most important factor

5:39

in determining what the right size organization

5:41

is for a

5:43

person is their own personality , their

5:45

level of risk tolerance , their

5:48

desire to make a difference . It's

5:50

difficult to make a difference in a big , clunky

5:53

organization . It's much easier to make

5:55

a difference in an agile , rapidly

5:58

evolving , rapidly growing organization

6:00

.

6:01

When you say you make a difference , do you mean like

6:03

a personal contribution that you

6:05

can sort of feel and measure toward

6:07

the solution it manifests in ?

6:09

various levels . At the end of the day , I

6:11

went into healthcare because I'm passionate

6:13

about wanting to make a difference in

6:16

people's lives , meaning

6:18

to improve

6:20

quality of life , whether

6:22

that means the ability

6:25

to cure disease or at least

6:27

improve the quality of

6:29

someone's disease burden

6:32

. That's the primary focus , that's what

6:34

gets me out of bed in the morning and

6:36

most of my colleagues at CinRx .

6:38

So one can

6:40

achieve that much more

6:42

tangibly in a small organization

6:45

than in a big organization . And

6:47

then also , when

6:49

you want many people

6:51

working on a project , let's say a

6:53

transaction , for example , when

6:56

you want many people working on

6:58

it , it's not that easy

7:00

to really

7:02

feel that what

7:04

you're doing has a direct correlation

7:08

with whether the deal is successful or not

7:10

, whereas in a small organization it's

7:12

all on you and either you make

7:14

it happen or you don't . So I enjoy

7:17

the challenge , the pressure , the

7:20

challenge and eventually

7:22

the success of knowing

7:24

that these two hands actually

7:26

made a difference .

7:27

Yeah

7:29

, yeah , Rewinding even further

7:32

you and sort of

7:34

pulling the same thread of the decisions

7:39

you made along your career trajectory . You

7:41

earned your MD and you were a clinician

7:44

, right .

7:44

You practiced medicine . I did practice medicine

7:46

. I was working

7:49

in intensive care and

7:51

I did that practice for eight years

7:53

. The reason that I decided

7:56

to change would probably

7:58

surprise most people . I got bored

8:00

with clinical medicine and I got bored

8:02

with a particular branch of clinical

8:05

medicine , which is intensive care .

8:07

It doesn't seem like that would do to a lander like

8:10

me . That doesn't seem like it would be boring at all You're right

8:12

.

8:12

So it seems

8:15

difficult to understand how that could be boring . But

8:17

if you understand

8:19

how intensive care

8:21

works , it's all algorithm based

8:23

. So you have a particular

8:26

patient and they have a particular set

8:28

of symptoms or sort of

8:30

a particular presentation and you

8:32

fall back on an algorithm . You do this

8:34

test . If it shows this , you do this , and

8:36

if it's yes , you follow this path

8:38

, and if it's no , you follow this path and

8:40

eventually , after a number of years , that

8:43

algorithm becomes internalized

8:45

and it's a bit like driving a car not

8:47

actually thinking that much . It's

8:50

kind of automatic . And

8:52

what I found frustrating about that is

8:55

that I felt that I was

8:57

not thinking . There

8:59

was certainly no creativity in the intensive

9:01

care unit . It's all following an

9:03

algorithm and I felt that I wasn't

9:05

using my brain . And

9:08

it happens to be that my wife was doing an

9:10

MBA at the time and she said why

9:13

don't you do a few subjects just for fun

9:15

? And I did , and it

9:17

was amazing because it was a completely different

9:19

way of thinking to

9:22

medical science . It was almost the opposite

9:24

. In medical science you take a whole lot of

9:26

data and you try and funnel it down

9:28

into a diagnosis . In business

9:31

studies you're almost doing the opposite . You

9:33

take an idea and try and expand it

9:35

out into something . What I really

9:37

enjoy is the combination the

9:39

medical science with the business component

9:42

.

9:42

Yeah , so when you joined industry

9:44

, you did so with the Because this

9:46

was another , I guess , transitionary question in

9:49

my mind Again , it's not uncommon for

9:51

people who practice medicine , for

9:53

doctors to join industry , often

9:56

in chief scientific or chief medical officer roles .

9:59

The chief business officer role is maybe less common for

10:03

a clinician to get into . So

10:05

when you made the decision to join , industry

10:08

.

10:09

you did so fully intending to

10:11

learn the business side and go

10:14

into that side , or

10:16

were you in more of a scientific role ?

10:18

I started off in a more scientific role and

10:22

then kind of moved into the intersection between

10:26

clinical development and commercialization , meaning

10:29

how do you set up

10:31

a clinical trial that meets

10:33

the endpoints that could

10:35

also justify various

10:39

regulatory indications that

10:42

support the commercial aspects

10:44

of the drug development ? And then

10:47

from that there was kind of a natural progression

10:49

to move more to the transaction side

10:51

. And once I moved into

10:53

the transaction side I knew I'd landed . This

10:55

is where I wanted to be , because

10:57

the substrate of the transaction is

11:00

still the drug , or often an early stage drug , which

11:03

relies on a good understanding of the science , the

11:06

medical science , which I enjoy . But

11:08

also understanding risk and

11:10

uncertainty over time in drug development

11:13

and then constructing a transaction that

11:17

is appropriate for both sides

11:19

of that transaction , given

11:22

the risk and uncertainty over time , and

11:25

if you can crack that , that results in a transaction that's

11:27

useful for both parties and

11:30

ultimately can benefit the patients in

11:33

treating positions as well . Yeah , it's interesting .

11:38

I'm going to ask you a theoretical or philosophical question about

11:40

this , because I think that's a very important question . Thinking

11:43

about it in simple terms , I'm

11:46

thinking about this in sort of a corollary fashion

11:48

to the business that I'm in . I'm

11:50

in media and I've been for my entire career

11:53

. So we create

11:55

content , all sorts of different content . We

11:57

have a BD team , obviously , a business development

12:00

team , sales team . I've

12:02

learned over the course of my career to become very discerning

12:05

about when and how

12:07

I make our BD folks

12:09

aware of a new product

12:11

, because BD folks want to sell

12:14

before it's ready . So

12:16

we think about that in terms of biopharmaceuticals

12:18

. There's

12:20

got to be at least some inherent friction

12:23

. Yet you , with your background

12:25

, you've come sort of to the

12:27

apex of those two disciplines

12:29

, understanding both . Does

12:31

that benefit you ? You ?

12:33

understand what I'm saying . I do Does it ?

12:35

benefit you and at times does it create

12:37

even a hint of

12:39

conflict or friction with other

12:42

BD folks who want to move .

12:44

It can create some

12:46

, by the way , not my BD folks , or

12:48

less than any others , it can create

12:51

some conflict . I prefer

12:53

to think of it as creating a

12:56

good tension that

12:59

finds the right balance

13:01

between where a drug is

13:03

in its development , what the risks

13:05

and uncertainty are that are associated

13:08

with that drug , between

13:10

today and when it eventually gets to the market

13:13

hopefully and then

13:15

finding a transaction between the two parties

13:17

that balances and

13:20

shares the risk over time . Because

13:22

when a transaction

13:24

is signed and the ink is dried

13:26

, that's not the end . That's the beginning of the relationship

13:29

often , and there's a long path that needs

13:31

to be traveled together . So if you've set up the

13:33

transaction in a collaborative

13:35

way and the entire negotiation

13:37

has taken place not in

13:39

a confrontational mode but rather

13:42

in a collaborative mode , that

13:44

sets the stage for the long-term relationship

13:46

. That's good not only for both parties

13:48

but optimizes the probability

13:51

of a successful drug . At the end of the day , it's

13:53

a win-win-win situation .

13:56

When , if ever , does the

13:58

?

13:59

I get that .

14:00

I have a lot of conversations with chief business officers

14:02

in biotech .

14:05

And collaboration comes up often

14:07

in negotiation and

14:09

I get the sense that , that's

14:12

the ideal . But I'm curious about

14:14

if you'd be willing to share .

14:16

When there does , when

14:19

conflict does appear or arise

14:21

, even slight conflict , what

14:24

is it usually centered on

14:27

?

14:29

It often comes about

14:31

because of certain issues

14:33

, and there's usually more than one . There's

14:35

usually a handful of issues that

14:40

arise where people

14:43

tend to be fixed in their position and

14:48

not willing to move , and

14:53

a suboptimal way of dealing with that situation is

14:56

to simply compromise . So the

14:58

simplest is around an economic parameter

15:01

. I want to offer you $100 . You

15:05

will only receive $200

15:07

. We compromise at $150

15:10

. And

15:12

that's halfway . Neither of us are particularly

15:15

happy and neither of

15:17

us are particularly unhappy . That's suboptimal . A

15:20

much better approach to compromise is

15:24

to say not why are you insisting on

15:26

$200 . Not that

15:28

you are insisting on $200

15:31

, but why ? What is

15:33

it about the $200 ? What is it

15:35

about your position that's important ? Is

15:37

it really just about the $200 ? Or

15:40

is there something else that gives us more

15:42

substrate to be able to work with

15:44

? So , instead of compromising

15:47

, you come up with a creative solution that

15:49

results in both parties being happy , instead

15:52

of just both parties not being unhappy

15:55

. I can see why algorithms

15:57

would bother you .

15:59

Because there's no algorithms .

16:02

There's no algorithms for that .

16:03

Another interesting challenge that you must

16:07

face as CBO at CinRx is the diversity I'm

16:10

assuming it's a challenge , I'll expere

16:12

perspective on that , but the diversity

16:15

of the CinRx is on that but

16:17

the diversity of the

16:19

portfolio of candidates and educations

16:21

that you pursue . There

16:27

are companies that are very

16:29

narrow in focus on a specific

16:31

molecule or a specific indication , maybe

16:34

multiple molecules for that specific

16:36

indication . Cinrx is not

16:38

that . What sort of challenges does that present

16:40

to you as Chief Business Officer

16:42

? I imagine I'm going to project

16:45

here a little bit .

16:45

I'm assuming that your scientific

16:48

and medical backgrounds lend

16:51

to your ability to

16:53

transact and do business

16:55

across multiple

16:58

products , but it's got to create some challenge

17:00

, it is we're

17:02

not focused in one particular therapeutic

17:04

area . We have

17:07

several therapeutic areas . We're

17:09

not agnostic , meaning we won't take

17:11

on anything that comes our

17:13

way , even if it is a program that's

17:15

attractive . In order for us to

17:17

consider a program , it has

17:19

to be matched to

17:21

capabilities and experience within

17:24

the organization . We

17:27

have an advantage in that

17:29

we have a strategic alliance with

17:31

a very large CRO called MEPAS

17:33

, which spans a number of therapeutic

17:36

areas . We're able to tap into

17:38

deep expertise in a

17:40

number of different therapeutic areas . Even

17:42

if we don't have a medical director

17:44

in a specific disease area , we're

17:47

able to tap in , often to

17:50

medical people

17:52

who do have expertise

17:55

in that area . We go through a lot

17:57

of trouble and a lot of effort

17:59

to forming good scientific

18:02

advisory boards with the best and

18:04

brightest minds in that particular

18:06

disease area . It's

18:11

not agnostic , but it's not overly narrow

18:13

either and we find

18:16

a balance between the

18:18

right number of therapeutic areas

18:20

to work in , without spreading ourselves too

18:22

thin , but always ensuring

18:24

that we have , either through internal

18:27

people or through the ability to

18:29

hire consultants , or through

18:31

the ability of very strong

18:33

scientific advisory boards and

18:35

, lastly , through our relationship with MEPAS

18:37

, to have absolutely rock

18:39

solid , cutting edge , world-class

18:42

expertise on a particular program

18:44

.

18:48

Getting back to your comfort level with a mid-range

18:52

company being Centrax

18:55

. The company demonstrates that when

18:57

I think about them very simple terms , there's

19:00

buy side or sell side , and biotech

19:02

typically is we want

19:04

to sell something , whether it's us or

19:07

a product or a platform , and

19:10

then there's big bio .

19:11

That's on the buy side .

19:12

They want to buy them , or their

19:15

product or their platform .

19:16

Centrax is on both sides at this point .

19:18

You've demonstrated that recently

19:21

with transactions where you're both buying

19:23

and selling . I think a couple I noted here were your

19:26

investment in VTV . You

19:30

also negotiated a multi-billion dollar deal like the

19:32

sell it's in-court AstraZeneca . It's

19:35

exemplary of being on both sides of

19:38

that coin Well

19:43

one in your role as Chief Business

19:45

Officer there . What

19:48

have you had to learn ? What challenges have you confronted

19:51

to be able to recognize

19:53

good strategic deals on both

19:56

sides of that ?

19:57

equation . Your

19:59

question is excellent and it speaks to our

20:01

particular model . What we typically do

20:03

is we bring in early-stage

20:06

compounds , that's , late preclinical

20:08

or early clinical stage compounds

20:10

. We nurture

20:12

them for a period of time , usually

20:14

until phase

20:16

two or midway through phase two . Then

20:19

we exit . We've got a particular

20:21

area if you'd

20:23

like to think of it as adolescence

20:25

where we take it

20:27

, we bring

20:30

in a toddler , we give them

20:32

a very loving

20:34

poem for a period of years , then

20:36

we allow them to go out into the big

20:38

white world . The strategic

20:41

transactions occur

20:43

at bringing in the asset

20:45

at the early stage through a licensing

20:48

agreement or an acquisition

20:50

. That's the usual way that we do

20:52

that . Then we develop the

20:54

program up to a

20:57

predetermined inflection point

20:59

. We have no intention

21:01

of commercializing the drug . We don't

21:03

take the program through to base

21:06

, through into commercialization . We

21:08

not set up for that , we don't have

21:10

the expertise for that . The big pharma

21:12

companies are much better suited

21:14

to that . Once we

21:16

have usually human proof of concept

21:19

somewhere in phase two , then we

21:21

start looking at either

21:23

the company being acquired or licensed

21:25

to a big pharma company or going in IPO

21:28

, which is what happened with . Sinport

21:30

became a completely independent

21:32

company through an IPO Then

21:36

, as an independent public company

21:39

, did the transaction with AstraZeneca . I'd

21:41

love to stay creative for that transaction , but I wasn't

21:44

involved at all because it was a completely

21:46

independent public company by

21:48

that stage .

21:51

You had mentioned earlier that you're not

21:53

agnostic . Centrex is not agnostic

21:55

. I want to dig

21:58

a little bit into the

22:00

selection criteria . Recently

22:03

you've illustrated

22:05

interest in metabolic

22:09

disease . You've

22:12

got four early phase mono and

22:14

combination therapies for the treatment

22:16

of obesity in the pipeline . Not

22:19

coincidentally , you've built your scientific

22:22

advisory board with quite a bit of metabolic expertise

22:25

in recent

22:27

years or months . That's

22:30

an indicator that there's a hot

22:32

area for you . Looking

22:36

at that maybe as an example , wondering

22:38

how does that become a focus

22:40

area for CinRx ?

22:42

The general focus areas where we

22:44

had deep expertise within

22:46

the company is cardiovascular

22:49

, metabolic and renal disease . That's

22:53

the main , the core where our expertise

22:55

lies , to some extent

22:57

common thread flowing

23:00

through those areas . Metabolic

23:03

disease leads to cardiovascular

23:05

disease and renal disease . It's

23:09

different facets of an overall

23:11

bad Western diet

23:14

, growing obesity levels

23:16

that plagues our

23:20

society . Metabolic

23:24

disease is the kind of linchpin

23:27

that holds many of these disease areas

23:29

together and is the initiating

23:32

pathology that leads on

23:34

cardiovascular and eventually renal

23:36

disease as well . It's

23:39

an area of deep interest for

23:41

us . Until recently

23:44

, the treatment of obesity has

23:46

been very furious . There haven't been

23:48

effective and safe drugs . That

23:50

has , of course , in the last

23:52

several years been completely

23:55

revolutionized . Yeah , the

23:57

GLP1 drugs

23:59

.

24:00

Was SINRX focused there before this

24:02

GLP craze took off ?

24:05

There was interest always in obesity and

24:07

diabetes , which is the sister disease

24:10

of obesity . Once

24:13

the obesity area , once this

24:15

great new world where obesity

24:17

is a disease that can be medically

24:19

treated very safely and very effectively

24:22

, then it certainly

24:24

was kept up a few notches .

24:29

How do waves of innovation

24:31

and a disease area affect a

24:35

company like SINRX in terms of its

24:37

pipeline and perhaps influencing

24:41

where you focus ? I'm

24:43

not insinuating that the GLP craze is

24:45

. I mean , when COVID came about , everybody

24:48

was developing a COVID

24:50

something for various reasons , perhaps

24:53

because there was something to be treated , perhaps because there

24:55

was a lot of money available to go treat

24:57

that . I guess I'm just wondering

25:00

, in a position like

25:02

yours , where you have a direct influence

25:04

on what comes in and what

25:06

goes out , how much market forces

25:09

and factors influence

25:11

you or sway you in different directions

25:13

.

25:14

I said earlier that what gets not

25:16

only me but most of the people at the company

25:19

out of bed in the morning is

25:21

thinking of the patient , the

25:24

context of obesity . Where

25:26

this miracle drug

25:29

or category of drugs is now available

25:31

, what we try and do is

25:33

say this is fantastic

25:36

, but you know , a disease area

25:39

is now very treatable

25:41

. What's next ? Where

25:43

can this area be improved

25:45

? What are the shortfalls in the current

25:47

disease , in the current

25:49

treatment options , and where

25:51

is it going ? So to illustrate , with

25:54

obesity , the GLP1 drugs are fantastic

25:56

but they have several problems

25:58

. One when

26:01

you start taking the drug , people

26:04

put the weight right back up . About

26:06

60% of the weight comes back in the first year

26:08

and then often people overshoot

26:10

where they started off . So they'll land

26:12

up , if they start taking the drug , you

26:15

know , in a more obese state than before

26:18

they started taking the drug .

26:19

Yeah .

26:20

Second issue is tolerability . The drugs

26:22

have in not everyone

26:24

, but in a lot of people they have tolerability

26:26

issues Nausea , vomiting

26:29

, diarrhea and some people cannot

26:31

tolerate those effects . Trying

26:34

to get up in the door , starting on a small

26:36

dose and working out slowly , is one

26:38

way of dealing with it , but a percentage

26:41

of people will not be able to tolerate

26:43

those drugs . And

26:45

lastly , when

26:47

one loses weight , there's

26:50

bad weight , which is adipose

26:52

tissue , which is fat , but there's also

26:54

muscle and bone mass which is lost

26:56

as well . And if you're 20 or 30

26:59

, that's not terrible , but

27:01

if you're 50 and 60

27:03

, learn losing muscle mass or

27:05

lean body mass .

27:06

You're accelerating something that's already happening

27:09

, exactly so that's a problem .

27:11

So what we do ? When we sit

27:13

around CinRx and and

27:15

talk about obesity for the future

27:17

, the discussion goes what

27:20

are the alternative approaches that

27:22

we can take to obesity ? How

27:24

might obesity treatment similar

27:27

to hypertension cancer treatment ? It's

27:29

not one drug , it's a combination of drugs

27:31

to manage tolerability issues

27:33

. How might that evolve

27:35

? How can we look at

27:38

focusing on weight

27:42

loss that is , predominantly adipose

27:45

tissue fat weight loss , while preserving

27:47

lean body mass ? And

27:50

there are various approaches to that

27:52

. So

27:55

the patient is the starting point , the

27:57

science is the pathway , and

28:00

then we scour

28:02

the earth looking for approaches

28:04

that make sense , that could meet

28:06

those scientific objectives that

28:08

we've set , looking back

28:11

at the patient of the

28:13

future and how treatment might

28:15

be optimized for him or her .

28:17

Can you give us a bit of an update

28:20

on where CinRx

28:22

is in terms of clinical activity right now

28:24

?

28:25

Sure On the metabolic front specifically .

28:28

Sure yeah , since we're talking about that , but

28:31

feel free to discuss any notable

28:33

clinical activity .

28:35

So the portfolio company that the metabolic

28:37

drugs are housed in is called SINFINA

28:39

, and the four

28:41

drugs that we have , there is

28:43

two novel mechanisms

28:46

. The one is called GDF15

28:48

and the other one is PYY the

28:51

alternative approaches to

28:53

treating obesity to

28:55

the GLP ones . They work in a different

28:57

way , and then we're

28:59

looking at the possibility of combining

29:02

those two drugs , each with

29:04

the GLP1 analogue , the

29:06

idea behind it being can

29:09

you improve tolerability for

29:11

patients and can you maintain

29:15

lean body mass while

29:17

reducing the

29:19

bad fat , the adipose tissue ? Yeah

29:22

, and that's the focus of our ongoing clinical

29:25

study .

29:25

That's interesting because another question that was swimming around

29:27

in the back of my mind while we were talking

29:29

about GLP1 and your approach

29:31

to obesity- is

29:35

sort of the displacement of old

29:38

approaches to even

29:40

non-therapeutic approaches

29:42

, To a specific indication , by

29:45

new indications . For instance , before

29:48

GLP1 , gastric

29:51

bypass was the trend , a surgical

29:53

intervention which comes

29:56

with perhaps maybe

29:58

less risk of losing

30:00

lean body weight

30:03

and bone density . But similarly

30:06

I'm

30:08

not sure what the word for it is , but when

30:10

you fall off the wagon you fall hard , even

30:13

with gastric bypass . So with new

30:15

technologies that perhaps

30:17

address some of those shortcomings , perhaps

30:21

you can displace the previous approach

30:24

, the previous standard , but you're saying that's not necessarily

30:27

the approach to center axis .

30:28

Well , indeed it is because one

30:30

of the drugs

30:32

that we're working on , the GDF15 , may

30:36

well and this is something we

30:38

interrogating in the clinical trials

30:41

, in the development of the clinical trials

30:43

could a drug like GDF15

30:46

be the maintenance

30:48

part of the

30:51

patient's therapy ? So the GLP1

30:54

are excellent at dropping weight significantly

30:57

and quickly , but if

30:59

the GLP1 are continuing

31:01

to cause one to lose

31:03

lean body mass , that's not a great idea

31:05

in the very long term . So might

31:08

a drug like GDA 15 , which may not

31:10

have the lean

31:12

body mass loss . In fact there are some data

31:15

that suggests it improves lean body

31:17

mass . So might that be

31:19

an appropriate strategy for one person

31:22

who has lost the weight enough

31:24

to improve their health outcomes

31:27

significantly but then doesn't necessarily

31:29

want to stop and put the weight right back on

31:31

, but doesn't necessarily want to be on the GLP

31:33

one for the rest of their life either ? Might

31:36

a drug like the GDA 15 be the

31:38

maintenance therapy

31:40

part of the question ?

31:42

Yeah , we should have showed that work . It

31:44

plays beautifully . It seems to the adolescence

31:47

analogy that you gave me earlier , right

31:50

Like there should be an ample

31:52

opportunity to market

31:54

that to big buy all .

31:57

So it's early days . We're

31:59

understanding how these drugs work

32:01

and what the effects are

32:03

on lean body mass

32:05

and adipose tissue . But

32:08

it's very exciting because the

32:12

armamentarium that will be available

32:15

to treat obesity is

32:18

just exponential and

32:20

many , many therapies will be available

32:22

, and Mugio would be

32:25

able to be tailored to exactly what

32:28

a particular patient needs

32:30

.

32:31

Any other notable clinical progress

32:34

of late .

32:36

We have two gastrointestinal

32:38

companies . We're

32:41

working on a disease area called gastroparesis

32:44

, which is a disease that

32:46

can either be idiopathic , just happens for no

32:48

apparent reason , or is very commonly

32:51

associated with patients who have diabetes

32:54

and that's a bloating

32:56

, inability of the

32:59

stomach contents to move , causes

33:01

pain and nausea and vomiting and

33:03

can be very debilitating

33:05

, and we're working on the drug

33:07

that's currently in phase two on

33:10

that . We have another

33:12

program that's for irritable

33:15

bowel syndrome . The diarrheal form , irritable

33:18

bowel syndrome is by far the most common

33:21

reason for referral to a

33:23

gastroenterologist . A very high

33:25

number of people suffer from that

33:27

and there's certainly significant

33:30

improvements that need to be made

33:32

in the treatments that are available

33:34

. We have an early stage oncology

33:37

program and we

33:39

also have , as you

33:41

said , btb , which is another

33:44

metabolic company . That's an investment

33:46

that we made . So a number

33:48

of different areas and we constantly

33:50

looking for new interesting

33:52

opportunities . Jp

33:55

Morgan's a great place to catch

33:57

up with people , progress transactions

34:00

that are in the making .

34:02

Yeah , when you come into an engagement like

34:04

JP Morgan or any investor conference

34:06

for that matter , this being sort of the granddaddy of the mall

34:10

but when you personally come into an

34:12

event like this again

34:15

, similar to the challenges that you

34:17

have as a company who's transacting on both

34:20

ends of the spectrum , how

34:22

do you sort of what's your amount ? How

34:24

do you sort of come into this event like with

34:26

a mindset that you've got goals to achieve

34:29

, when I mean , really it can

34:31

move in any number of directions ?

34:32

for your company . There's three big things that

34:34

we've been doing all the time . We're

34:37

looking for new opportunities .

34:40

We're raising money to feed the

34:42

hungry children through their

34:44

endless Someone

34:46

must have coached you and said listen when you go talk to Matt

34:48

, he likes really simple analogies

34:50

. That's a good one .

34:51

That's the way my brain works very

34:53

simple analogies and then you

34:56

know the exit , be it an

34:58

IPO or a strategic

35:00

transaction with the big pharma

35:02

company . So any one of these

35:04

partnering conferences , we

35:07

generally do all three . We meet with potential

35:09

investors and investments

35:11

can happen at the top coat

35:15

area at the CinRx level , or

35:17

investments in the various

35:19

portfolio companies at the appropriate time

35:22

and constantly looking for

35:25

in licensing opportunities

35:27

. And constantly talking to big

35:29

pharma companies about

35:32

potential strategic investments

35:34

or talking to bankers about IPO

35:36

, if such things ever

35:39

come back to us . But always

35:42

doing those three things at every

35:44

conference .

35:46

Yeah , so you mentioned IPOs , and

35:50

, from what I understand , in late Q423

35:53

, the M&A market started to pick up again

35:56

. Interest rates are coming down . You

35:58

know there's a reason for optimism , and I'm

36:00

feeling it . It's hard not to feel it

36:02

at this event . Like you can come into

36:04

a bear market and no

36:06

offense , but the chief business officers of the world

36:08

come in with their best foot forward

36:10

and smiles on their faces and everything's

36:12

sunshine and roses . The

36:15

sense here , though , is that there are some real indicators

36:17

that things are turning around . What's your take ?

36:19

I do think there that we've turned

36:21

a corner . The

36:24

last half of Q23 was absolutely

36:26

brutal for all three of those areas

36:29

that we work in . It

36:31

was very difficult . This seems to

36:33

be in addition to the hard indicators

36:35

that you mentioned the interest rates and the

36:38

number of transactions improving . There is

36:40

an era of

36:42

optimism and the conversations

36:44

are a little freer and , at the

36:46

end of the day , there is money . People

36:49

have been reluctant and cautious to

36:51

part with their money in the form of investments

36:54

particularly the last half

36:56

of Q23 , but can't

36:58

hold on to money forever . So , with

37:00

interest rates , with the softer

37:02

and harder indicators of

37:05

gradual improvement , it feels

37:08

better even this

37:10

early on in this year .

37:11

Yeah , and sentiment creates

37:14

inertia . It sounds like soft or fluffy

37:16

to say well

37:20

, it feels better , but there is truth

37:22

, feeling the sentiment does

37:24

move the needle . Yes , absolutely , yeah

37:27

, excellent . So I often like

37:29

to ask seasoned veterans of this space

37:31

to share advice with perhaps

37:34

first time founders and leaders

37:36

of biotechs . I'd like

37:38

to kind of win all that question

37:40

down for you a little bit

37:42

, based on your experiences

37:46

and your past . So

37:49

if you're speaking to someone who perhaps is coming

37:52

from the scientific or medical side , and

37:54

has an interest in getting involved

37:56

in the business side of biotech

37:58

. Speaking

38:00

specifically to that person , what advice

38:02

would you offer ?

38:04

I would say that the

38:07

transactional side of farmer

38:09

and biotech Is to

38:11

a large extent , an apprentice type

38:13

of education . So

38:16

while it's very useful to

38:18

have formal education in the form of an

38:20

MBA or whatever you decide to

38:22

do , that definitely is useful . But

38:25

the only way of really learning it is

38:28

to sit at the table and observe and

38:30

gradually increase your participation

38:32

. So find someone

38:34

who you really respect

38:37

and respect . In this context

38:39

, I think has two components one , that

38:42

the person Genuinely

38:44

has the patient as

38:47

a center of their focus , and that's for two reasons

38:49

. One we're not we're not selling

38:51

widgets in this industry . We actually have

38:54

people's health , that they're

38:56

interesting to us , and that's a . It's

38:58

a very Important

39:00

and heavy burden to bear that comes

39:03

with a lot of responsibility . But there's

39:05

also a good business reason to

39:07

have the patient at the center . Because

39:09

if you do that and

39:11

develop your drugs to specifically

39:13

help patients , either

39:16

in terms of their

39:19

disease burden or the quality of

39:21

their life , the the

39:23

financial reward comes automatically

39:26

as a part of that . And

39:29

do you think that ?

39:29

that gets gets lost at times

39:32

. I think it does , yeah .

39:33

I think it does , because , particularly

39:35

, you know , in in a year like 23

39:38

, where money is so tight that

39:41

the focus drifts away from

39:43

that to budgets , and cutting

39:45

your cutting Corners

39:48

and and trying to save Money

39:51

and do things quicker impacts cutting

39:53

a few corners that should not be cuts . So

39:56

, yes , I think that the focus is lost when

39:58

when times are tough . And

40:01

then the other is to find

40:03

someone who transacts

40:06

in a collaborative way . And

40:08

there's two reasons for for that one

40:11

, the end product that the

40:13

Transaction is a much better

40:16

transaction for all parties involved

40:18

. And secondly , it's

40:20

not a particularly pleasant line

40:22

to spend your entire Workday

40:24

fighting the people . It's much

40:27

better , it's much more , it's

40:29

much more fun and it's much more pleasurable

40:31

to spend your time working together

40:33

with the party on the other side of the

40:35

table To find

40:38

a true , truly innovative

40:41

, collaborative solution

40:43

to a problem , rather than just slogging

40:45

out the compromise .

40:48

The most recent conversation that I had

40:50

with a chief business officer on

40:53

this topic , on negotiation on I'm

40:56

transacting Was nila

40:58

Patel , and it strikes me

41:00

that you're . She's also

41:02

an ending , maybe

41:05

a PhD , because she came from the science side , right , and

41:07

you have a similar demeanor , like you

41:09

both . You're both very Even keeled

41:12

. You both come across as very intelligent

41:14

, but you know , thoughtful

41:17

. Do you think that's key , like from

41:20

a personality standpoint , coming into

41:22

a position like yours ?

41:23

I think

41:25

being even killed and not

41:28

, and you

41:30

know , not having an ego is helpful

41:32

, because everything

41:35

takes so long in drug

41:37

development . It's a . It's a you

41:39

know , 10 , 15 , 20 year process

41:42

and if , if

41:44

the person's going to get all

41:47

flustered and and rates

41:49

and , you know , throw

41:52

temper tantrums in motion , yeah

41:55

, it's just doesn't work . You have

41:57

to be able to just Take

42:00

a step back , really

42:02

turn off your own ego and

42:05

Look at the process , look at the data

42:08

in a very critical

42:10

way , see

42:12

what makes sense and just work

42:14

at it . This I Think

42:18

of every transaction as having

42:20

20 demons to slay this

42:22

, 20 problems that

42:25

are coming away on every transaction . Each

42:27

one of them could derail the Transaction

42:30

completely and you have to do very

42:32

systematically and very patiently

42:34

deal with each one , find

42:37

a solution and then move on to the next one and

42:40

you get to a point 15 demons

42:42

in where you you over

42:44

the hump . You know that the deal is going

42:46

to happen , but there's still

42:48

the , the last remaining issues

42:50

that need to be solved .

42:53

Yeah , what I asked you

42:55

, dr Samuels , that that

42:57

I should have right . If I were a better interviewer

42:59

, what would I have asked you , what would

43:01

you have shared , what would I have pride

43:03

for ? That You'd like to

43:05

have a conversation , I think what

43:07

?

43:07

what I am particularly proud

43:10

of about scenarios

43:12

is the model , the

43:15

, the notion of having a

43:18

Holding company

43:20

the scenarios company

43:22

with the portfolio company six

43:24

at present . Underneath that , what

43:26

I like about that is there's

43:28

tremendous inefficiency in

43:31

the biotech and and file space

43:33

where , you know , a

43:35

typical small biotech company has a

43:38

full-time CEO and a full-time CFO

43:40

and there's full-time CMO and CSO

43:42

and the C-suite and

43:45

they're working on one particular

43:47

drug and it always

43:50

puzzles us what you know many

43:52

of these people doing for eight or ten hours

43:54

a day , um , the

43:57

. The CINRX model is different . It's

43:59

about fractionally promoting services

44:02

, uh to the portfolio company

44:04

. So One

44:06

portfolio company may need my

44:08

full attention this week , you

44:11

know , for five days , ten hours

44:13

a day , um , but next

44:15

week may not need any of my attention

44:17

and then I can move on to another company

44:20

. The same with the CEO

44:22

Services that are provided , the same

44:24

with the medical services and the scientific

44:26

services . So what I like

44:29

about the CinRx model is

44:31

the efficiency , because

44:34

People

44:36

who work in biotech are generally expensive

44:39

people that many , many years of

44:41

education and experience behind them

44:43

and If

44:46

you can efficiently use

44:48

those resources across multiple

44:51

portfolio companies To make sure

44:53

that every minute of every person's time

44:55

is being used in an effective

44:58

and efficient way . I think that's not

45:00

only good for CinRx , but

45:02

it's good for drug development , because

45:05

it improves the efficiency and

45:07

consequently the cost of developing

45:10

drugs .

45:11

Yeah , I mean so , theoretically , totally

45:14

get it , um , but in in

45:16

practice , uh , it Occurs

45:19

to me that it would take a special person

45:21

to be a fractional CMO

45:24

or CS or CBO for that

45:26

matter , across multiple companies

45:28

, multiple modalities , multiple indications

45:30

. So I'm not , I'm not , you

45:32

know , I'm not challenging the notion , I'm

45:35

suggesting that perhaps CinRx has

45:37

found some unicorns to fill those positions

45:40

. You know , a lot of folks come out and I'm like well , I'm an , I'm

45:42

an anabombe guy . I can . I can

45:44

transact all day long in the world of monoclonal

45:47

antibodies . So tell me

45:49

a little bit of that .

45:50

I don't think it's as rare as unicorns , but

45:52

I don't think it's for everyone either . It's

45:54

some way between this . There's

45:56

a particular personality At

45:59

at CinRx . One anecdote

46:02

Every one of us

46:04

will be on a conference call two

46:06

minutes early . It's , it's a big

46:08

.

46:10

You were . You were in my makeshift recording

46:12

booth before I was , so you couldn't

46:14

you proved that .

46:15

So so that's a . You know it's a little anecdote

46:17

, but every single person is Is

46:20

is one or two minutes early to every single

46:22

meeting . We all

46:25

are very passionate people

46:27

. We , we , we want to make

46:29

a difference and we all

46:31

enjoy tremendous diversity

46:33

. We , we get bored doing the same

46:36

thing every day . So you know

46:38

, those are some of the characteristics that a person

46:40

needs . Again , not a unicorn

46:42

, but certainly not for everyone , but

46:44

either yeah , okay , so take

46:46

note .

46:47

Well , awesome , I I appreciate this . You've

46:50

you've been a joy to talk with . It's

46:52

been a very insightful conversation . I'm

46:54

glad you made some time for me . It's a very busy

46:56

week , so I'm honored that

46:58

you took some time to spend with the business of biotech

47:00

.

47:01

Thank you very much . It was a pleasure talking to you . Thank you for standing

47:03

with us .

47:04

I'm Matt Pillar and you just listened to the business

47:06

of biotech , the weekly podcast

47:08

dedicated to the builders of biotech

47:10

. We drop a new episode with

47:12

a new exec every monday morning and

47:14

I'd like you to join our community of subscribers

47:16

at bioprocessonline . com . Apple

47:19

podcast , spotify , google player anywhere

47:22

you get your podcasts . You can

47:24

also subscribe to our never spammy

47:26

, always insightful monthly newsletter

47:29

at bioprocessonline . com/ bob

47:32

. If you have feedback or

47:34

topic and guest suggestions , hit me up

47:36

on linkedin and let's chat and , as always

47:38

, thanks for listening .