At the beginning of the year, Laura Colón took over from Rick R. Suárez as president of AstraZeneca Spain. "When we learned that Suárez was going to take the leap to another position [he holds the presidency of the company in the US], we began to work together to prepare this replacement." For Colón it meant taking an important leap because he went from leading one of the leading and strategic areas of the laboratory - he has directed Oncology since 2023 - to taking charge of everything: "It is a beautiful opportunity, a privilege and a very great responsibility." Seven years ago he joined the pharmaceutical industry. He says that he came to direct the lung cancer lines and "later I had the opportunity to work with international markets from Singapore." He recognizes that Suárez's support is not coincidental, since "he has been my mentor for many years."
Together with Actualidad Económica, he reviews, in his first media interview, the investment plans of the Barcelona hub, the obstacles to access to innovation in Spain and the impact of geopolitical instability on the pharmaceutical sector. Colón also assumes the position of site leader of the AstraZeneca Global Hub in Barcelona, which "has established itself as a driver of biomedical, digital and commercial innovation in Europe." This international center represents a new innovation model that combines biomedicine, data science, digital innovation and commercial excellence. From the hub, the Anglo-Swedish laboratory, and one of the three companies that developed a vaccine against Covid, seeks to meet the objective of making an ambitious leap: 20 new molecules in 2030.
In the last five years, AstraZeneca has multiplied its investment commitment in Spain. What weight does the Spanish subsidiary have in the company's global strategy today?
We have multiplied by five the number of employees we have. We brought the Barcelona hub to Spain, which competed with other international candidates, and in the end our country was the decisive option. It is a very firm commitment by the company to innovation in Spain: we have a commitment of 1,300 million euros of investment until 2027, with more than 1,600 professionals already working in the hub. Approximately 60% of the center is dedicated to R&D and the rest to artificial intelligence and other areas. Everything contributes to the company's ambition to bring 20 new medicines by 2030: we have already done eleven and we are on the right track.
How do you value the public-private collaboration ecosystem in Spain to attract investment in R&D compared to other European markets?
At the R&D level, Spain is a critical pillar for the entire pharmaceutical industry, not just for AstraZeneca. Here, we are leaders in clinical trials: we have 258 trials underway, which represents around 27-28% of the total trials that are authorized each year; That is, we contribute almost 30% of the science that is being done right now in the country. Added to this is the quality of our Spanish researchers, comparable to that of the United States or China, the quality of health professionals and hospital infrastructure. But the most differential element is the generosity of Spanish patients: when their doctor offers them to participate in a clinical trial, they normally accept. We also see it in vaccination rates, always among the highest in the world. It is something that we must continue to cultivate together with the Government to maintain our leadership in clinical development.
All this innovation needs a legislative framework to accompany it. Is the Spanish system up to the task?
We are working to improve it. We see availability on the part of the Government, the ministries and the autonomous communities, but there is still pending work. If we review investment in R&D: the US invests around 3.4% of its GDP, Europe is committed to reaching 3% but has been stuck at 2.2% for years, and Spain is at 1.5%, halfway to that European objective. The second problem is access. As Europeans we are committed to ensuring that innovation reaches the patient in around 180 days. Germany achieves this in about 158 days, according to the latest WAIT report. In Spain it is taking 537 days on average, and more than 600 for Oncology. When the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approves a drug, patients and doctors know it exists, but it takes too long to arrive. At AstraZeneca we receive calls from patients asking for access, especially in advanced cancer, where the alternatives are exhausted, and that is where the anguish of families comes in. The third point is the level of investment in innovative drugs, also stagnant at around 0.53% of GDP for years, while the population ages: people over 65 years of age have increased by more than 20%. 70% of this increase in longevity is due to innovation and medications. Medicine is not an expense, it is an investment in health.
As noted, this agile access to innovation continues to be a challenge in the Spanish health system. The Government argues that clinical trials already give access to patients while financing is resolved. Is it enough?
It is true that the clinical trial always contributes to the system: it generates management of a drug that, if it works, will reach the market, and gives opportunities to patients in areas of high need without alternatives. But the trials have a limited duration. In acute diseases such as cancer, these patients continue on treatment financed by the laboratory until the trial ends - which can last 5, 6 or 7 years - and then they must jump to the medication already marketed. There, windows without a therapeutic alternative can occur, which represents a very serious drama that must be carefully explained to patients.
There are geopolitical aspects (US tariffs, the Iran war...) that affect the predictability that this industry needs. How does the company face these ups and downs?
It is a complex moment, of great uncertainty and instability, but in Europe we have the resources: research, in which we are leaders, and we must maintain it.
How is the European competitiveness that comes from that leadership maintained?
First, not overregulating: starting a clinical trial is competitive, the first to start is the one who recruits patients. In the US and China it takes on average 60 days to approve a trial; In Europe we reach 110 days, and with local regulations we can almost double that time. The European Laboratories Association [EFPIA] and the new Biotech Act propose reducing it to 75 days, but we are still not competitive with China or the US. Second, per capita investment in innovation: in the United States it is around 0.7-0.8%; in Europe, at 0.3%. The Trump Administration demands that Europe finance innovation at the same level, and Europe has to take that step from a different health model, that of universal coverage. And third, access time: we can bring the best innovation in the world, but if it does not reach the patient, it is an investment and time wasted.
The 'Draghi report' pointed out the pharmaceutical industry as one of Europe's strengths compared to the US and Asia. How is this step achieved?
Two years have passed since the Draghi report and we have had two years of discussions, but we are making progress. Pharmaceuticals is one of the few industries in which Europe can be a world leader: we generate around one million jobs at European level, and in Spain, according to Farmaindustria, we have around 270,000 direct and indirect jobs. Draghi was clear about what needs to be improved: avoiding overregulation, which makes us less competitive compared to the rest of the world; reduce clinical trial times; review investment in R&D, stagnant below China and the US; protect intellectual property, much more restricted in Europe than in the United States, the United Kingdom or Switzerland; and recognize and invest in innovation. As an industry we need predictability on two levels: how much the drug is going to cost and how much real intellectual property time we are going to have.
Spain has a Pharmaceutical Industry Strategy agreed between Government and industry. Is it on the right track or is there friction?
I think we are taking steps. In a context of uncertainty with 27 Member States, Spain is, as far as I know, the only country with a pharmaceutical industry strategy agreed between Government and industry, which is already an important sign of political intention. What needs to be worked on is investment in innovation: we need new price and reimbursement management models, and real-life valuation. In Germany, for example, they set a price, make the drug available to patients and, after 12 months of real-life evidence, review that price. To replicate it in Spain we need data interoperability, which we do not have right now. We work hand in hand first with the Government and then with the autonomous communities, which are the ones that finance with their budgets; some are more advanced in evaluating results, which makes it easier to pilot new models. The ideal would be an agreement between all agents to achieve this interoperability, and there artificial intelligence will play an important role in the coming years.
Mónica García has pointed out the possibility of reviewing the additional 12-month protection, and the new drug law is in process. How does the industry value it?
We see an intention to extend those 12 months, but both Farmaindustria and EFPIA maintain that more breadth is needed, because this protection focuses on a specific type of drugs and we must go further. Regarding the medicine law, it is an effort that we have been waiting for for a long time. The Government has been willing to work on it with the different agents and its approval by the Council of Ministers is an important step. Is it perfect for the industry? No. Is it for the Government? Neither. You have to find a balance that satisfies everyone. We believe that the intention is to improve access times, and that is addressed with three parallel regulations: the drug law, the new health technology law, and the price and reimbursement law. We think that they respond to what is being pushed from Europe with the Biotech Act and the new European pharmaceutical legislation. We hope its processing can advance and be closed in this legislature.
Reviewing your pipeline: of the 20 new medications planned for 2030, how are they distributed by therapeutic areas, and are there any that could mark a turning point in the coming years?
Around 50% would be oncology, where we are very focused on conjugated monoclonal antibodies, combinations, bispecific drugs and cell therapy. The other 50% is divided between cardiovascular, renal, metabolic, respiratory, infectious diseases and rare diseases. It is difficult to point out just one, because all the innovation we bring is disruptive and aims to change the lives of patients; In the area of metabolism, for example, we are in advanced stages of a weight loss drug, in pill format; Also in cardiovascular terms we are getting closer to launching a treatment against resistant hypertension. After 20 years in oncology, without having the results of the trials it is risky to make statements, but gene therapy is going to represent an important change, not only in hematological tumors but also in solid tumors and immunological diseases: there will be a before and after. The underlying message is that we have a very diversified pipeline, with a focus on early diagnosis and precision medicine, which for me is true sustainability: giving specific treatment to the specific person.
Artificial intelligence and big data have been integrated into the hub for years. How does it translate into everyday life?
More than 90% of our small molecule programs are already developed in some way with artificial intelligence; It is part of our daily life. To implement it, we first ensure that employees have adequate training under the concept of the human in the loop, with the human always at the center to supervise the AI. We work a lot with startups, which we help develop through accelerators. For example, we have launched conversational AI projects that have reduced almost 8,000 hours of phone calls between doctors and patients, helping the doctor prioritize when contact is necessary. We also collaborate with Tempus to accelerate and identify phase 3 and phase 4 clinical trials.
The pharmaceutical sector in Spain stands out for its high female presence in science and healthcare, but the gap persists in senior management. What are the pending challenges?
This industry is a privilege in that sense. In my management committee we are 80% women; In fact we are looking for diversity, but to bring in gentlemen! We also see a clear trend in clinical trials, where more and more female principal investigators lead the projects, and we continue working to have more female presence on the steering committees. The great challenge for women to reach senior management is to get used to traveling and going outside. As Spaniards, it is difficult for us to take the leap and gain experience in Europe, the US or Asia. In the company we have talent import and export programs: in the hub, 70% is national talent - including what we have managed to repatriate - and the remaining 30% is international, where more than half are also women. In addition, we promote projects to work from school motivating girls towards STEM careers, explaining to them the opportunities offered by science and the pharmaceutical industry.
With the rapid growth of teams in Spain, especially digital, scientific and data profiles, how do you maintain a cohesive corporate culture that is attractive to young talent, without clashing with the traditional culture of a large pharmaceutical company?
Spain is a wonderful place to attract talent. As an expatriate - I have lived abroad for more than ten years -, I value that the country offers a very high quality of life and a lot of security, also in terms of health; It is a good place for both foreigners and nationals.
