Choosing the right CDMO partnership model for softgel development

In today's pharmaceutical industry, partnerships between pharmaceutical companies and Contract Development and Manufacturing Organizations (CDMOs) are crucial for the successful development and commercialization of drugs. Choosing a CDMO itself can be a game-changer. 

When considering a CDMO partnership, several questions arise, especially in terms of cooperation models. What are the different cooperation models available for softgel capsule development? Which cooperation model is most suitable for a given project? What factors should be considered when selecting a CDMO partnership model? Selecting the appropriate cooperation model is a critical decision that can significantly impact the outcome of a project, particularly in the development of softgel capsules. 

This article explores three primary models of cooperation with a CDMO and identifies scenarios where each might be most advantageous. By understanding the advantages and disadvantages of each model, pharmaceutical companies can make informed decisions and foster successful partnerships with CDMOs.

1. Fee-for-Service Model

Let’s start with the most widely adopted approach. In the fee-for-service model, the CDMOs are compensated for specific services rendered. This model is characterized by its simplicity and directness, offering clear budgeting and cost management. The client typically retains full intellectual property rights for the developed product, and the risk for the CDMO is very limited, as it is compensated immediately for its services. 

The primary advantage lies in the clarity of transactions and the protection of IP rights. However, the model may lead to higher initial costs and does not incentivize the CDMO to exceed baseline expectations, potentially leading to efficiency losses in complex projects. Moreover, while the CDMO generates revenues during both the development and commercial manufacture, the margins for commercial production are often limited.

Special case: fee-for-service with CDMO background IP

In some cases, a CDMO may offer a fee-for-service model while also leveraging their own pre-existing background IP. Under such circumstances, the pharmaceutical company may not have complete ownership of the product's IP, which can create challenges when attempting to switch to a different CDMO. To mitigate potential issues, it is crucial for companies to clearly understand and agree upon IP distribution early in the project.

2. Licensing Model 

In the front-loaded model, the CDMO takes on the responsibility of product development at its own expense. Once the development is completed or nearing completion, the CDMO identifies marketing partners who are typically required to make an initial milestone payment to access the development and purchase the product from the CDMO at a premium price, which includes a license fee.

This model can alleviate the financial burden on the marketing partner and provide a faster return on investment. However, it’s important to note that it may ultimately prove more expensive than a fee-for-service development. Additionally, licensing often involves extensive contract negotiations covering target territories, exclusivity of use, and intellectual property (IP) rights.

For the CDMO, such projects may be attractive when they leverage the CDMO's key technologies, equipment, or proprietary background IP. However, the commercial risk for the CDMO is significantly higher compared to the fee-for-service model. As a result, front-loaded projects are typically initiated by large CDMOs with the financial capacity to support them.

3. Profit-Share Model

In the profit-share model, both parties share the development costs and the profits. This model is particularly suitable for companies with complementary areas of expertise, such as finished product manufacturing and marketing, API/excipient manufacturing, and finished dosage form manufacturing. The partners contribute their know-how, capacities, and capital to the development process. Costs and profits are typically shared in the same ratio (e.g., a cost-sharing ratio of 40/60 would result in a profit-sharing ratio of 40/60). The profit-share model is often selected for high-cost and/or high-risk projects.

The strength of this model lies in its ability to align the interests of both parties and distribute risks, thereby promoting maximum efficiency and innovation. However, it involves complex negotiations and requires a significant level of mutual trust and commitment, making it challenging to implement for transactional or short-term projects. Moreover, as profit-share projects often compete for the same resources as fee-for-service projects with short-term payments at a CDMO, they may experience delays.

Which CDMO parternship model is right for me?

Selecting the right cooperation model with a pharmaceutical CDMO is a strategic decision that can have a profound impact on the success of your project. Whether you choose the straightforward fee-for-service model, the risk-mitigating front-loaded approach, or the collaborative profit-share model, it's crucial to pick the one that best fits your project's unique needs and aligns with the strategic goals of both partners. 

Don't underestimate the importance of carefully negotiating the terms, especially when it comes to intellectual property rights and financial arrangements – getting these right can set your partnership up for success. By taking the time to thoroughly understand your options and thoughtfully selecting the most suitable model, you can build a strong, mutually beneficial collaboration with a CDMO.

When you get this partnership right, you'll be well on your way to driving innovation and achieving success in drug development and manufacturing, ultimately benefiting not just your organizations, but also the patients who rely on your products.

Want more advice about CDMOs?

How our team can help:

+ We provide independent expertise and a hands-on approach

+ We help identify strong and competent partners for formulation and analytical development

+ We offer risk-based formulation development concepts in consideration of the entire soft capsule