In pitching VCs, biopharma co’s should be careful to explain the preclinical models that have been used. Key q’s: how relevant is this model to human disease (genetic components, homology of biology between the animal species and humans, symptoms developed by animals vs...1/6
...humans, age at which animals are treated relative to when patients are likely to be dosed, patient-derived vs. immortalized cell line, immune system components present, etc.)? Is it well-accepted by the field and frequently used by competitors? To what extent has it...2/6
...been predictive of clinical activity? What was the design (how many animals, dosing for how long, dose levels, positive and negative controls used, etc.)? For targeted therapies, how does the level of whatever’s the basis of targeting (antigen on cell surface, protease...3/6
...to remove mask, etc.) compare between the model species and humans? If you’ve replicated a particular preclinical result several times, or replicated data produced by an academic partner, that’s helpful info to share. Be honest about the shortcomings of the model and...4/6
...explain how you can fill in the gaps in terms of unanswered q’s. (Additional models, in vitro work with human tissues, data produced by others in the field including clinical data, etc.) Some of this can be footnoted, put in the appendix, etc. The less info you provide...5/6
...around an important readout, the more legwork required on the part of VCs to get to a critical level of conviction. The more context you can provide, the more meaningful the data becomes to investors – and hopefully, the closer you get them to prioritizing your financing. 6/6