06Jun

When Actavis acquired Forest Labs in 2014 it chose to rebrand the products under its own, better known name. That rebranding decision helped Actavis expand the reach of Forest Labs’ products, especially those in women’s health and gastroenterology.

That example is one of the most successful merger rebrandings in a study from the brand valuation consultancy, Brand Finance.

Researching the results of 3,000 mergers and acquisitions since 2014, Brand Finance found 21% resulted in a rebranding, typically of the acquired company’s products. Of all the industries, pharma was the most prolific – and financially successful – in rebranding.

The report says pharmaceutical companies rebranding 31% of the acquired companies. Most of the time the rebranding decision was made because the acquiring company had the stronger name. Sometimes, as when Eli Lilly acquired Novartis Animal Health, it was to avoid brand confusion.

Alex Haigh, Brand Finance valuation director, told FiercePharma, “Pharmaceutical companies tend to be very experienced in mergers and acquisitions. Of the eight companies with the most rebranded acquisitions, three are pharmaceutical companies — Allergan, Lilly and Roche.

“Companies which are experienced in integrating acquisitions tend to be more likely to rebrand and have better results.”

Compared to M&A rebrandings in other sectors, pharma’s are significantly better. The report found pharma had a first year return of 13.8%. Only telecoms and the tech sector had positive first year returns on their rebrandings.

“The success of rebranding strongly depends on sector,” the report observes. “For example, in pharmaceuticals, where acquisitions generally have not built strong brands but acquirers have, rebrands are highly successful.”

“Superior marketing and client networks of the larger players lend themselves to the trend to rebrand for this reason. Also, since there are often positive reputational benefits from new drug development, rebranding can help wider business performance through association.”

Illustrating this point, the Brand Finance reports points to Roche, citing the big pharma firm for its “flexible rebranding strategy.” Roche rebranded its acquisition of three smaller firms — Ignyta, Intermune and Seragon.

But Roche retained the separate brands Flatiron, a medical technology company, and the molecular insights company Foundation Medicine because each already had an established client base and strong name recognition.

Actavis itself is a rebranding poster child. A year after completing the acquisition of Forest Labs, Actavis bought Allergan adopting the name of the acquired company, rolling it out slowly and geographically.

Last month, AbbVie completed its $63 billion acquisition of Allergan and retired the name.

Photo by Stephen Foster on Unsplash

[bdp_post_carousel]

Jun 6, 2023

What’s the Difference Between the COVID Vaccines?

With the approval last month of the Moderna vaccine by the Food and Drug Administration, we now have two COVID-19 vaccines available. Two more – one from Johnson & Johnson the other from AstraZeneca – are on the way and could be approved as soon as February.

Healthcare workers, residents of nursing facilities and some first responders have already received the Pfizer vaccine, the first one approved by the FDA. Moderna has begun shipping its vaccine with the first of the 25 million initial doses administered last month.

People eager to be immunized have inundated doctors’ offices and clinics asking when the vaccine will be available. The best answer is soon.

Which one, though, will you receive? And does it make any difference?

The answer to the first question is whichever vaccine can be obtained the quickest or, in some cases, whichever your health plan recommends. It really doesn’t make any difference to you.

Both vaccines require two separate doses to reach maximum effectiveness 21 days apart for Pfizer and 28 days for the Moderna version. Both protect about equally well. The FDA data shows Pfizer is 95% effective after both doses. Moderna is 94.1%.

Unlike most other vaccines, these two vaccines use pieces of protein from the SARS-CoV-2 virus to prompt the body to create antibodies. Conventional vaccines, like the annual flu shot, are manufactured from viruses typically grown in chicken eggs. These chicken grown viruses are then killed or weakened to become vaccines.

The COVID vaccines employ messenger RNA (mRNA), a newer technology. These vaccines “teach” the body to replicate the little bit of the CoV-2 protein, which, in turn, creates an immune response causing the body to make the antibodies that provide the protection against the virus.

The most significant difference between the Moderna and the Pfizer vaccines is how they must be stored. Both can survive for a few days in standard refrigeration. For longer periods, the less stable Pfizer vaccine must be kept in ultra-low temperatures below -94 F. That makes shipping and storing Pfizer’s vaccine somewhat more complicated, especially outside urban areas where the low temperature refrigeration is not easily available.

“At the end of the day, these two vaccines are pretty similar,” Dr. Thomas Russo, professor and chief of infectious disease at the State University of New York, tells Health. “Grab it while you can.”

Photo by Hakan Nural

[bdp_post_carousel]