Over the last few months, the pharmaceutical and biotech industry has seen a flurry of mega deals, many of them comfortably exceeding the $1 billion mark and some reaching well into double-digit billions. If you only follow them as isolated headlines, it is easy to lose sight of the bigger picture: where capital is actually flowing, which disease areas are in focus, and which modalities are attracting premium valuations.
In this series, we zoom in on deals announced in the last few months and organize them by therapeutic theme and modality, with the aim of understanding the strategic logic behind them and what they imply for the coming years. In this first article, we focus on building the overall “map” of recent deals. Subsequent parts will dive deeper into specific themes: oncology, obesity and metabolic disease, respiratory / infectious / hematology, and finally, practical perspectives for investors and startups.
1. Why focus on “the last few months”?
Before we get into the details, it is worth clarifying why this series deliberately focuses on deals from roughly the last few months, rather than attempting a full-year recap.
1-1. A practical balance between news flow and analysis
A full-year review easily becomes a historical summary, where the “signal” from the most recent quarters is blurred by earlier events. At the other extreme, looking only at a single month often yields too few data points and risks over-interpreting what might be a one-off spike.
A “last few months” window strikes a practical balance: it preserves timeliness, offers a sufficient number of deals to identify patterns, and keeps the amount of information at a level that can be analyzed in one series without overwhelming readers.
1-2. Building a recurring “quarterly lens”
Using this kind of rolling time window also makes it easier to revisit the topic regularly. Over time, one can imagine a set of articles such as “Key pharma deals in late 2025” or “Mega deals in early 2026,” and even an annual meta-review that connects these quarterly snapshots into a longer narrative.
In that sense, this series is intended as a recurring lens rather than a one-off deep dive—something closer to a “market diary” for pharma deals than a static textbook chapter.
1-3. Depth without sacrificing readability
Because later parts of the series will delve quite deeply into oncology, obesity/metabolic disease, and respiratory/infectious/hematology, trying to cover an entire year’s worth of deals would either force us to be superficial or result in excessively long articles.
By constraining ourselves to the last few months, we keep the number of transactions manageable while leaving enough room to analyze each theme in a meaningful way.
2. Scope and basic assumptions of this article
Next, let us define what kinds of transactions we are mainly looking at in this series and what assumptions we are making.
2-1. Focusing on deals of roughly $1 billion and above
In this series, we primarily concentrate on:
- Deals with a headline value in the ballpark of $1 billion or more (including milestones)
- Both M&A transactions and large license / collaboration agreements
- Deal values discussed on a total potential consideration basis (upfront plus milestones, sometimes including equity and royalties)
Of course, “total deal value” alone never tells the full story. The balance between upfront and milestones, the presence of options, and the structure of co-development or co-commercialization all materially affect the true risk–reward profile. Part 5 of this series will therefore focus specifically on how investors and BD teams can read and interpret these deal terms.
2-2. Why we include both M&A and licensing / collaboration deals
While full company acquisitions grab headlines with big price tags, modern pharma BD is at least as much about sophisticated licensing and collaboration structures as it is about outright takeovers.
- Global licenses with co-development and co-commercialization
- Regional deals (for example, ex–Greater China or ex–US rights)
- Option-based collaborations with pre-defined buyout terms
These structures often reach multi-billion-dollar headline values, even if they do not show up in “M&A league tables.” The Takeda–Innovent macro-deal in oncology is a prime example: not an acquisition, but a very large, multi-asset partnership. For that reason, we treat both M&A and major licensing/collaboration deals as “mega deals” in this series.
2-3. Organizing by disease area, modality, and strategic role
Simply listing companies and deal values does not reveal much. Instead, we will organize the discussion along three axes:
- Disease area: oncology; obesity / metabolic / MASH; respiratory; infectious disease; hematology, etc.
- Modality: antibodies, bispecifics, ADCs, in vivo CAR-T, RNA, oral biologics, and so on
- Strategic role: is the deal plugging a portfolio gap, or creating an entirely new growth pillar?
This first article focuses on the high-level map; later parts will zoom in on specific clusters with more detail and concrete examples.
3. A quick look at the “mega deal” size distribution
One striking feature of the last few months is the sheer number of multi-billion-dollar deals across different disease areas and technologies. To get our bearings, let us briefly group them by scale.
3-1. $10 billion-class transactions: full-company acquisitions with flagship assets
At the very top end, we see several $10 billion-class transactions, including:
- Novartis – Avidity Biosciences: a roughly $12 billion acquisition to secure an RNA-based platform and neuromuscular disease pipeline.
- Pfizer – Metsera: up to $10 billion for a focused obesity and metabolic pipeline, re-establishing Pfizer’s foothold in the weight-loss market.
- Merck – Verona Pharma: an approximately $10 billion deal centered on Ohtuvayre (ensifentrine), a first-in-class inhaled COPD maintenance therapy.
- Merck – Cidara Therapeutics: a roughly $9+ billion acquisition of a late-stage, long-acting antiviral (CD388) for influenza prevention.
These are classic examples of “anchor product plus adjacent pipeline” acquisitions. Each is meant to inject a long-duration growth driver into the buyer’s portfolio, particularly in areas where patient populations are large and chronic use is likely—respiratory disease, obesity, and infectious disease among them.
3-2. $3–5 billion range: concentrated bets on single key assets
In the $3–5 billion range, we see deals that are slightly more focused but still clearly strategic:
- Roche – 89bio, built around pegozafermin, an FGF21 analog in Phase 3 for MASH with potential cardiometabolic benefits.
Here, the common theme is the convergence of metabolic, hepatic, and cardiovascular risk, often in patients who are overweight or obese. These deals are not just about MASH per se; they are about owning key assets in the broader “CVRM” (cardiovascular, renal, metabolic) cluster that will increasingly define how payors and systems think about risk management.
3-3. $1–3 billion range: high-value platforms and structured collaborations
In the $1–3 billion range, we encounter many of the most interesting platform and collaboration deals:
- Takeda – Innovent: a broad oncology collaboration spanning a PD-1/IL-2α-bias bispecific backbone (IBI363) and a CLDN18.2-targeted ADC (IBI343).
- Chugai – Rani Therapeutics: a multi-program collaboration leveraging the RaniPill® oral delivery platform for several high-value biologics.
- CSL – VarmX: a strategic partnership with a buyout option built around VMX-C001, a reversal agent for FXa inhibitor–treated patients needing urgent surgery.
These deals are less about “buying a company” and more about locking in privileged access to key platforms and de-risked late-stage assets, often with thoughtful option structures and co-development elements attached.
4. Mapping by disease area: oncology, obesity, and respiratory / infectious / hematology
With this scale-based overview in mind, let us now sketch a thematic map that will guide the rest of the series.
4-1. Oncology: in vivo CAR-T, ADCs, bispecifics, and oral biologics
In oncology, several recent deals embody the move toward “next-generation” modalities:
- AbbVie – Capstan Therapeutics: a major move into in vivo CAR-T and related cell engineering platforms.
- Takeda – Innovent: a combined bet on a next-generation immuno-oncology backbone (IBI363) and an ADC targeting CLDN18.2 (IBI343).
- Chugai – Rani Therapeutics: a long-term collaboration to explore oral formulations of biologics, including oncology-relevant antibodies.
Collectively, these illustrate a layered strategy: improving tumor selectivity and efficacy via ADCs and bispecifics, simplifying administration and patient experience via oral biologics, and pushing cell therapy toward more scalable in vivo approaches. We will unpack these themes in detail in Part 2.
4-2. Obesity, metabolic disease, and MASH: beyond GLP-1
In obesity and metabolic disease, deals such as:
- Pfizer – Metsera
- Roche – 89bio
reflect both a desire to catch up in GLP-1–adjacent mechanisms and a broader ambition to build integrated CVRM franchises. The underlying story is not just “me-too GLP-1 competition,” but rather:
- Complementing GLP-1 with alternative or synergistic mechanisms
- Positioning for long-term management of obesity-associated comorbidities (cardiovascular, hepatic, renal)
- Owning assets that can anchor multi-morbidity care models
We will explore these dynamics more thoroughly in Part 3.
4-3. Respiratory, infectious diseases, and hematology: rebuilding steady cash flows
In respiratory, infectious diseases, and hematology, deals like:
- Merck – Verona Pharma (COPD)
- Merck – Cidara (long-acting flu prevention)
- CSL – VarmX (reversal for FXa inhibitor–treated patients)
highlight the importance of large, chronic, and recurrent patient populations. Compared with oncology, per-patient revenue is lower, but:
- Patient numbers are substantial
- Use is often long-term or recurrent
- Products can serve “risk management” roles (e.g., vaccines, reversal agents)
These areas play a key role in rebuilding stable cash flows in the post-Keytruda, post-Humira era. We will dive into that in Part 4.
5. Where the money is going: a modality lens
Beyond disease areas, the last few months of deals also reveal clear preferences at the modality level.
5-1. Antibodies, bispecifics, and ADCs
In oncology and beyond, antibodies remain central—but increasingly in more sophisticated forms. Deals like Takeda–Innovent, which combine bispecific antibodies and ADCs in a single collaboration, underscore two intertwined goals:
- Enhanced tumor selectivity and potency
- Building a multi-modality oncology platform rather than isolated products
This logic will sound familiar to readers of earlier Morningglorysciences series on ADCs and bispecifics, and the recent deals provide an up-to-date real-world validation of those trends.
5-2. in vivo CAR-T and the scalability of cell and gene therapies
in vivo CAR-T exemplifies a broader shift in cell and gene therapies: from artisanal, ex vivo manufacturing toward more scalable, in-body engineering approaches. The AbbVie–Capstan transaction is best interpreted as a long-term platform bet, not just a product acquisition.
From a strategic perspective, this is about addressing two issues simultaneously:
- Manufacturing cost and scalability challenges in classic CAR-T
- Extending cell therapy beyond oncology into autoimmune and other indications
5-3. RNA and oral biologics: rethinking delivery routes
Finally, RNA platforms (e.g., the Novartis–Avidity deal) and oral biologics (e.g., Chugai–Rani) point to another critical axis of innovation: how therapies are delivered.
- RNA therapeutics enable precise targeting of genetically defined diseases, especially in neuromuscular and other niche populations.
- Oral biologic delivery systems open the door to transforming patient experience and potentially reducing the burden on infusion centers and clinics.
These are not mere convenience plays; they have the potential to reshape care pathways and economics across multiple therapeutic areas.
6. Shared patterns and strategic differences among big pharma players
When we step back from individual transactions, a few common patterns emerge across companies, alongside some important distinctions.
6-1. Simultaneously “plugging holes” and “creating new growth pillars”
Most large pharma companies are pursuing a dual strategy:
- Defensive deals that plug looming revenue gaps from LOEs (loss of exclusivity) of current blockbusters
- Offensive deals that build new growth pillars in emerging areas such as obesity, in vivo cell therapies, or novel delivery technologies
Respiratory, infectious, and hematology transactions tend to lean more toward the former, while obesity and advanced oncology modalities lean more toward the latter—though the line is not always sharp.
6-2. From “doing everything in-house” to “finding the right partners early”
Another shared pattern is the shift away from trying to develop every platform technology internally. Instead, we see a clear preference for:
- Partnering with specialist biotechs that have already de-risked key modalities
- Combining equity, options, and multi-asset collaborations to secure long-term access
- Using M&A selectively to acquire full control over especially critical platforms
This is, in many ways, a rational response to the increasing complexity of biology and technology. No single R&D organization can be world-class in all modalities at once.
7. What the last few months of deals suggest about 2025–2027
To close this overview, let us distill a few key themes that these recent mega deals hint at for the 2025–2027 timeframe.
- Theme 1: The rise of integrated CVRM franchises around obesity
Obesity is becoming an entry point into broader cardiovascular, hepatic, and renal risk management, not just a standalone indication. - Theme 2: Intensifying competition in next-generation oncology modalities
Bispecifics, ADCs, in vivo CAR-T, and oral biologics will increasingly define the “frontier layer” on top of classic monoclonal antibodies. - Theme 3: Rebuilding stable, diversified cash flows
Respiratory, infectious disease, and hematology assets will play a key role in underpinning the next decade of baseline revenue. - Theme 4: Platform- and partnership-centric strategies
Large pharma will continue to rely heavily on platforms and external partnerships, rather than attempting to internalize every new modality from scratch.
Parts 2–4 of this series will explore these themes in more detail through the lens of oncology, obesity/metabolic disease, and respiratory / infectious / hematology, respectively.
8. Summary and outlook for Part 2 (Oncology)
In this first article, we:
- Explained why we focus on deals from the last few months
- Defined the scope and scale of the transactions of interest
- Mapped recent deals by size, disease area, and modality
- Outlined common strategic patterns across big pharma players
In Part 2, we will turn our attention to oncology—a perennial hot spot that is now entering a new phase of competition driven by in vivo CAR-T, ADCs, bispecifics, and innovative delivery platforms. We will use specific deals as case studies to explore how major players are positioning themselves for the next decade of oncology innovation.
If oncology is your main area of interest, Part 2 will be a deep dive worth watching.
9. My thoughts and future outlook
Looking at these deals side by side, rather than as isolated news flashes, makes it much easier to appreciate just how broad the current wave of activity really is. Oncology, obesity and cardiometabolic disease, respiratory and infectious disease, hematology, RNA platforms, oral biologics—the list is long. Even if you have been following individual announcements, putting them on a single page produces a different kind of “aha” moment: it becomes clear that we are not just seeing a few opportunistic moves, but a coordinated re-shaping of portfolios across multiple companies and modalities. For readers who are busy with their own research, clinical work, or business responsibilities, a structured overview can hopefully serve as a lightweight way to stay oriented without trying to consume every press release in real time.
From the perspective of investors and founders, however, more deals does not automatically mean that life gets easier. If anything, the bar is rising. Big pharma is not looking for “cool science” in the abstract; it is looking for assets and platforms that plug very specific gaps in their portfolios or that can credibly become new growth pillars over a 10-year horizon. That is exactly why I try to read these transactions not only as external observables, but also as a mirror for my own projects. In shaping the direction of initiatives like the 1102 project or the broader Bloom X³ ecosystem, I keep asking: where, in this global flow of capital and strategy, do we want to sit—what problems are we uniquely positioned to solve, and at what point in their life cycle should we aim to partner? If this series can help you ask similar questions about your own work, then it will have served its purpose.
This article was prepared by the Morningglorysciences editorial team.
Comments