Why Building Long-Term Value And Making Clinical Progress Are Inextricable

A conversation between Dicot Pharma CEO Elin Trampe and Clinical Leader Executive Editor Abby Proch

Small biotechs know all about the importance of clinical execution and long term value creation. Dicot Pharma CEO Elin Trampe knows this intimately, as she helps to advance the company’s clinical program for LIB-01, a next-generation erectile dysfunction drug.

In this interview, Trampe discusses how clinical milestones, financing strategy, shareholder value, and partnering considerations must be tightly integrated in early development through late-stage planning. She also outlines how maintaining scientific rigor while building long-term commercial value shapes trial design, investor communication, and licensing timing in a competitive biotech landscape.

Clinical Leader: You’ve talked about balancing investor interest with clinical progress. How do you do that day-to-day when planning for a Phase 2b trial?

Elin Trampe: Clinical progress and shareholder value go hand in hand. In the pharma industry, and especially for a smaller biotech like Dicot Pharma, each clinical phase is a true value trigger for long-term shareholder value. As a case in point, a clinical study like the 2b trial we have planned needs to answer the key clinical questions ahead of Phase 3, and that is the foundation for creating long-term shareholder value.

From a shareholder perspective it’s also of course important to continually assess the most value‑accretive financing approach for each stage of development. For a company pursuing an out‑licensing strategy, this becomes especially important: In pharma, entering a licensing deal too early typically means giving up a larger share of the total deal value. Timing, therefore, is critical. Based on investor interest we are able to finance our planned Phase 2b trial independently and we can hence continue building expected long-term shareholder value as a completed Phase 2 program is a major value inflection point.

When you’re making decisions internally, how do you handle moments where the science and business side aren’t perfectly aligned?

My experience is that if you continuously have a proactive way of working, with different potential scenarios outlined, such situations can often be mitigated. If misalignment happens, our approach is to treat it as a constructive tension rather than a conflict and manage it in a constructive way through close collaboration between our clinical, scientific, and business teams, combined with input from external experts. The goal is not to compromise but to find solutions that strengthen both the scientific validity and the strategic value of the program. Scientific integrity is nonnegotiable, and we need to make sure we are building a program that is commercially viable. That is the overall guiding principle.

Which external partners, if any, help you strike that balance, and how are they involved in those strategic decisions?

External partners are essential, particularly in a development phase like this. We work closely with KOLs, CROs, regulatory advisors, patent experts, and many other specialist functions. They provide deep expertise in all our business areas and an important external perspective that can help challenge internal assumptions, which ultimately improves decision-making. However, the strategic direction always remains with us; we view our partners as highly integrated contributors rather than decision makers.

That combination of internal ownership and external expertise is key to maintaining both scientific rigor and strategic focus.

At what stage in development do you start thinking, “This program needs to look attractive to a future licensing partner?” And how does that shape how the trial is run?

You need to think about that from an early stage. As much as the clinical program and clinical results are essential, here is also where the commercial strategy plays a significant role to attract potential partners. Commercial thinking is a foundational capability as we need to be able to explain how to execute our science, how this adds commercial opportunity, and that it really meets a market need out there.

From the preclinical stage, we started adding market insight into decision-making and acknowledged and valued the fact that we were already generating the data that potential partners will evaluate in detail.

It does not really impact how we run the trials. There are, of course, some regional specific requirements in study populations, for example, that need to be considered in an overall partnering discussion.

Timing is everything with licensing deals. What kind of clinical milestones or data signals tell you it’s the right moment?

Optimizing the timing for licensing deals is really critical to maximize shareholder value. Generally, in the industry, a complete Phase 2 program is a trigger point, but deals are happening earlier and later in the industry as multiple factors come into play, including therapeutic area, market size, maturity, unmet medical need, competition, and market access complexity.

The fundamental guideline is that the longer you wait, the better deal terms can be achieved. During clinical development, we have been persistently evaluating this. As a key part of the financing strategy for the upcoming Phase 3, Dicot Pharma will work to establish industrial partnerships for out-licensing. Strategy and timing may vary depending on geographical area.

What have you learned about communicating with investors while a trial is ongoing, especially when timelines or expectations shift?

For Dicot Pharma, communication and transparency with the investor community is a key priority. We spend a lot of time on communication strategy, especially around timelines for key milestones such as clinical trials. It’s not always easy, but we have had a good track record in delivering according to the timelines communicated. I think the most important thing is to be realistic in your communicated timelines and to have them backed up with very detailed internal planning schedules, including different scenarios.

And for other biotech teams following your progress, what’s one thing you’d tell them about aligning clinical strategy with financing from the start?

Your clinical strategy and your financing strategy should be closely integrated. Your financial planning should be long-term and include all possible scenarios in the clinical plan, as well as evaluating all the different financing alternatives early on. Financing needs to be a constant focus in your strategy planning and clearly linked to the upcoming clinical value inflection points. I think some companies start to focus on the financing when it’s too late and then your options are more limited and not aligned with your clinical and strategic agenda.

About The Expert:

Elin Trampe is CEO of Dicot Pharma, based in Uppsala, Sweden. Elin holds a Master of Science in industrial engineering and management from Linköping University. She has held several managerial and international roles in various types of companies and industries, including the global companies Mondelēz International and GE Global Operations as well as the pharmaceutical company Oasmia Pharmaceutical AB. Elin has extensive experience in business development, strategic international partnerships, operational excellence, and product development.