July 2026 Newsletter: Where US pharma stands on China biotech innovation, evidence, and competitiveness
- Jul 8
- 3 min read
Dear colleagues, China-based biotechnology companies now originate and develop a growing share of the assets Western pharma is licensing, and the industry has not agreed on what that means. This month, we walk through three camps forming around the US-China biotech landscape. |
Optimist: innovation has moved east. After a decade in which China was often framed around biosimilars and fast follow-on development, the optimist now sees first-in-class science, local development infrastructure, and global biopharma demand reinforcing one another. Bristol Myers Squibb signed a collaboration with Hengrui in 2026 worth up to $15.2 billion, with Hengrui leading early development. AstraZeneca has also announced an obesity and diabetes deal with CSPC worth up to $18.5 billion, alongside a separate $15 billion commitment to build in China through 2030. Evaluate’s Mark Lansdell captured the shift as inescapable, stating, “Such a high proportion of the pipeline is now China-derived, so going to China is almost an inevitability in some areas, like oncology.” Pessimist: the burden of proof is higher. For the pessimist, China-originated assets now face a higher bar on generalizability, data integrity, and reproducibility. At the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2026, Akeso shared that ivonescimab cut the risk of death by 34% versus tislelizumab plus chemotherapy in HARMONi-6, though the result came from a single-region China trial with a male-heavy patient mix and uncertain applicability to Western metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) populations. In squamous NSCLC, historical bleeding concerns with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy also put safety at the center of the applicability question. BMO Capital Markets analysts put the market skepticism plainly: “Simply put, we do not know.” Akeso’s Michelle Xia has pushed back that China-versus-Western generalizability concerns are overstated, with Akeso’s partner Summit Therapeutics testing ivonescimab in an ongoing multiregional HARMONi-3 Phase 3 trial. Separately, Nature Medicine’s retraction of the LungTIME-C01 publication reinforced the data-integrity concern in June 2026. The publication was based on a Phase 3 lung cancer study sponsored by Hunan Cancer Hospital, with the journal flagging inconsistent changes to endpoints, eligibility criteria, sample size, and study design. For the pessimist, data maturity and external validation remain the sponsor’s burden. Realist: competition is the catalyst. The realist views China’s rise as a forcing function for US reform and a deal-by-deal diligence problem. The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) launched Operation TrialBlazer in June 2026 to compress early US development, with projected Phase 1 time savings of six to twelve months. Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) CEO John Crowley has framed the question as “How do we [the United States] outcompete? How do we reform our system to be more competitive?” while RA Capital’s Peter Kolchinsky and Tess Cameron argue that walling off China would leave US firms less competitive. At the deal level, the realist looks asset by asset: molecule, data package, CMC (chemistry, manufacturing, and controls) path, patient bridge, and regulatory risk. Where do you fall? This month's newsletter was researched and drafted by Headland Associate Kaitlyn Ryu. |
Let's talk. If you are facing high-stakes, cross-functional decisions, Headland continues to be a trusted partner. Feel free to reach out to us at solutions@headlandstrategy.com to discuss how we can support your corporate development strategy. |
What we are reading and listening to. A short list of external resources we are finding helpful:
|