Pfizer’s recent announcement regarding its sickle cell drug, Oxbryta, has sent ripples through the pharmaceutical landscape. The company has voluntarily withdrawn Oxbryta from the market amid concerns over patient safety, particularly after reports of patient fatalities during its use. This move follows Pfizer’s substantial $5.4 billion acquisition of Global Blood Therapeutics, the company behind Oxbryta, in 2022. Analysts had projected modest sales for the drug, estimating revenues of just $395 million for 2024.
Despite the drug’s limited sales contributions, its withdrawal raises significant questions about the future of GBT’s assets. Pfizer is still in the process of developing GBT-601, a next-generation treatment for sickle cell disease, but similar adverse effects have already been noted during clinical trials of this candidate, including incidents of patient death. Leerink Partners analyst David Risinger indicates that investor sentiment is likely shaken as they assess the potential impact on GBT-601’s prospects following the Oxbryta news.
As this development unfolds, it’s worth noting that other firms engaged in sickle cell treatments may benefit from Pfizer’s decision. Stocks of companies like Agios Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, and Beam Therapeutics received slight boosts following the announcement. Although Pfizer’s stock initially dipped after the news, it managed to retain a small fraction of value, closing at $28.97. Agios, which closed down 2% at $48.05, and Crispr, whose shares edged up 1.2% to $46.49, exemplify a mixed market response. Meanwhile, Beam Therapeutics saw a 2.5% rise, closing at $25.12.
The ADN sizes for these stocks vary. For example, companies such as Editas Medicine, Fulcrum Therapeutics, and Bluebird Bio—penny stocks focused on gene editing—also experienced upward movement amidst the uncertainty surrounding Oxbryta.
Sickle cell disease is notorious for causing painful episodes known as vaso-occlusive crises, which have become a significant concern for patients. Following the termination of Oxbryta, Pfizer highlighted an alarming imbalance in the occurrence of these crises among patients treated with the drug. The company decisively announced the cessation of all Oxbryta studies globally, reiterating that the risks associated with the medication presently outweigh any benefits it may offer.
The news has caught many Pfizer investors off guard, given the hefty financial investment involved in acquiring GBT. Initially, Pfizer had anticipated combined peak sales for Oxbryta and GBT-601 to hit around $3 billion. With the abrupt pullout, analysts scrutinize whether GBT-601 can still deliver on its promise, especially after Pfizer postponed the primary completion date for its clinical trials by two years, pushing it to 2028.
On the other hand, there is a silver lining for competitors in the space. The exit of Oxbryta from the market might just clear the way for other emerging therapies. Agios, which is working on a drug called mitapivat and expects to report Phase 3 results in 2025, might find its prospects bolstered as it passes through regulatory scrutiny easier due to Oxbryta’s absence. Analysts believe that mitapivat’s targeting of a similar patient population could position it favorably in the eyes of regulators if clinical data demonstrates an ability to alleviate pain crises that Oxbryta failed to address.
The implications of this strategic pivot by Pfizer—and its potential fallout—underscore the dynamic nature of the pharmaceutical industry, where patient safety and drug efficacy are paramount. Stocks of firms like Crispr Therapeutics, which has already gained ground with its gene-editing capabilities, position themselves well in this evolving scenario, standing to gain traction among patients who are left seeking alternatives after Oxbryta’s withdrawal.
Investors are advised to keep a close watch on ongoing developments regarding sickle cell treatments, as the landscape might shift rapidly. As Pfizer reassesses its approach to sickle cell disease therapies, the ripple effect could significantly alter the competitive dynamics among pharmaceutical companies striving to innovate in this critical health sector.