Buying the Future: How Pharma is Using M&A to Reset Pipelines

PharmaTell
5 minutes ago
5 min read

We've had Eyes on the evolving Pharma Pipeline Strategy. This week we highlight how many companies are leaning on external innovation - using full acquisitions as well as targeted asset deals - to drive long-term strategy.

Executive Highlights

Pharmaceutical companies are increasingly relying on acquisitions and partnerships to rebuild and future-proof pipelines.
Full takeovers are being used to secure de-risked platforms, while targeted deals preserve flexibility and optionality.
Capital recycling through divestments is funding new investments in priority therapeutic areas.
Shifting policy signals — such as in vaccines — are influencing where and how companies deploy capital.

Introduction

As pricing pressure, loss of exclusivity, and development risk continue to weigh on internal R&D productivity, pharmaceutical companies are ramping external deals to secure future growth. Recent deal activity suggests a strategic shift: rather than spreading bets broadly, companies are using acquisitions and partnerships to sharpen pipeline focus, accelerate access to validated assets, to remain competitive in the short term while positioning themselves for long-term competitiveness.

Below we highlight some of the recent transactions — ranging from billion-dollar buyouts to highly targeted platform collaborations — to illustrate how Big Pharma is deploying capital with greater selectivity and to minimize policy uncertainty in areas such as vaccines. Together, these dynamics point to an even more focused, mid-to long-term strategy-led approach to deal-making.

Full Acquisitions to Secure Growth Platforms

When clinical confidence and strategic alignment converge, companies are increasingly willing to acquire entire organizations rather than license individual assets.

That logic underpinned Eli Lilly’s $1.2 billion acquisition of Ventyx Biosciences. The deal secures a portfolio of oral NLRP3 inhibitors targeting chronic inflammation — a pathway Lilly views as central to a range of neuroinflammatory, cardiometabolic, and cardiovascular diseases. Ventyx’s Parkinson’s disease candidate had already shown encouraging phase 2 data, and additional biomarker results suggested potential beyond neurology, including stroke risk reduction.

By acquiring the company outright, Lilly bypassed competitive partnering dynamics and gained full control over a platform it views as strategically foundational. Analysts noted that the move reflects growing confidence in inflammation as a unifying disease driver and highlights renewed interest in NLRP3 inhibition across the industry.

A similar logic applies to Sanofi’s $2.2 billion acquisition of Dynavax Technologies. The transaction strengthens Sanofi’s adult vaccine portfolio with the FDA-approved hepatitis B vaccine Heplisav-B and adds a promising shingles candidate that could eventually challenge market leader Shingrix. For Sanofi, the deal fills a clear portfolio gap at a time when its vaccine business has faced declining influenza sales and shifting demand patterns.

Meanwhile, GSK moved to acquire Rapt Therapeutics for $2.2 billion, securing global rights (outside China) to ozureprubart, a long-acting anti-IgE antibody being developed for food allergy prevention. The asset targets the same pathway as Xolair but with a dosing schedule that could meaningfully improve convenience and adherence. For GSK, the acquisition bolsters its immunology pipeline following years of mixed internal development outcomes.

Across these deals, a pattern emerges: when assets are sufficiently de-risked and strategically core, companies are choosing ownership over access.

Targeted Deals to Expand Modality Reach

Not every pipeline gap warrants a full acquisition. In many cases, companies are opting for selective partnerships that provide exposure to innovation while deferring full capital commitment.

Amgen’s collaboration with Disco Pharmaceuticals reflects this approach. By licensing programs emerging from Disco’s surfaceome mapping platform, Amgen gains access to novel cancer cell surface targets for antibody-based therapies without acquiring the entire company. The deal builds on Amgen’s recent oncology investments while preserving flexibility as targets move toward clinical validation.

Similarly, Boehringer Ingelheim entered a $1.26 billion biobucks agreement with China-based Simcere for a preclinical bispecific antibody targeting IL-23p19 and TL1A in inflammatory bowel disease. Interest in TL1A has surged following multiple promising clinical readouts across the industry, and Boehringer’s deal positions it within this emerging competitive landscape without assuming early-stage development risk alone.

In oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb partnered with Janux Therapeutics to develop a tumor-activated T-cell engager. The collaboration allows BMS to re-enter a modality it has previously struggled with, leveraging Janux’s tumor-selective technology while limiting near-term exposure. The structure reflects a broader willingness to revisit high-risk modalities through partnerships rather than internal builds.

These agreements highlight a preference for optionality: securing a seat at the table while allowing data — not ambition — to dictate the next move.

Pipeline Pruning and Capital Recycling

Pipeline building is increasingly paired with active portfolio pruning, as companies monetize non-core assets to fund strategic priorities.

That dynamic was evident in Pfizer’s decision to sell its remaining stake in ViiV Healthcare for nearly $1.9 billion. The transaction provides near-term cash as Pfizer prepares for revenue pressure from loss of exclusivity and declining COVID-related sales. While ViiV remains a successful HIV franchise, Pfizer’s exit underscores a sharper focus on areas where it retains operational control and long-term strategic fit.

This combination of divestment and reinvestment reflects a more disciplined capital allocation mindset — one in which assets are continuously reassessed against future growth potential rather than historical success.

Policy Signals and the Vaccine Exception

While deal-making remains largely pipeline-driven, recent changes to U.S. childhood vaccine recommendations provide important context for vaccine-focused strategy.

The CDC’s decision to remove or reduce recommendations for several pediatric vaccines — including COVID-19 and influenza — has introduced new uncertainty around uptake, reimbursement, and public perception. Although these changes do not affect adult-indicated products directly, they underscore rising policy and reputational risk in the vaccine space. Against this backdrop, Sanofi’s recent vaccine acquisitions skew decisively toward adult and specialty indications rather than broad pediatric programs.

The strategy suggests a preference for segments with clearer demand signals and more predictable policy environments, even as companies continue to emphasize scientific commitment to vaccines.

What This Wave of Deals Signals

Taken together, recent M&A and partnering activity points to several structural shifts in biopharma strategy:

Ownership follows confidence. De-risked assets are increasingly being acquired outright.
Optionality matters. Early and mid-stage innovation is often accessed through partnerships.
Capital is being recycled, not hoarded. Divestments are funding new pipeline bets.
Policy risk is shaping strategy. Particularly in vaccines, regulatory signals influence deal appetite.

Rather than opportunistic buying, today’s deal-making reflects a more selective, thesis-driven approach to growth.

Conclusion

As internal R&D productivity remains uneven and external pressures mount, mergers, acquisitions, and partnerships have become more important tools in biopharma’s strategic playbook. The latest wave of transactions shows companies buying not just assets, but clarity — prioritizing platforms, modalities, and markets that align with long-term goals. In an increasingly complex environment, the future of pharma is being built as much through deal-making as discovery.