GSK’s two-speed strategy: broad sourcing and selective bets

GSK’s two-speed strategy: broad sourcing and selective bets By Jules Adam 7 minutesmins March 25, 2026 7 minutesmins Share WhatsApp Twitter Linkedin Email Photo credits: Rock Staar Newsletter Signup - Under Article / In Page"*" indicates required fieldsX/TwitterThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.Subscribe to our newsletter to get the latest biotech news!By clicking this I agree to receive Labiotech's newsletter and understand that my personal data will be processed according to the Privacy Policy.*Company name*Job title*Business email* Over the past months, GSK has been particularly active on the deal front, expanding its pipeline through multiple moves. In December alone, the company signed a string of partnerships spanning antibody-drug conjugates, RNA-targeting small molecules, and neurodegenerative disease platforms. More recently, it committed up to $950 million to acquire 35Pharma and its pulmonary hypertension candidate, HS235. GSK is sourcing early-stage science across a wide range of technologies and disease areas, while placing more selective bets where the biology has already been de-risked. The question is whether this amounts to a coherent company strategy or a more opportunistic attempt to close an emerging growth gap. Table of contentsGSK refocused: specialty medicines and vaccines driving growthAfter spinning off its consumer health business into Haleon, GSK became a much more focused company. The old mix of pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and over-the-counter products gave way to a biopharma group built around medicines and vaccines, with management prioritizing vaccines and specialty medicines and centering the business on four core areas: infectious diseases, HIV, oncology, and immunology/respiratory. That refocus has made the company’s growth engine easier to identify. In 2025, GSK generated £32.7 billion ($43.7 billion) in sales, including £13.5 billion ($18 billion) from specialty medicines and £9.2 billion ($12.3 billion) from vaccines. Specialty medicines were the main driver of performance, with HIV contributing £7.7 billion ($10.3 billion), respiratory/immunology/inflammation £3.8 billion ($5.1 billion), and oncology £2 billion ($2.7 billion). That means more than 40% of group sales now come from specialty medicines, while HIV alone accounts for close to a quarter of revenue. Indeed, HIV remains GSK’s largest business through its ViiV Healthcare joint venture, with long-acting treatments such as cabotegravir-based regimens shaping its next phase of growth. Vaccines are the other major pillar, led by Shingrix, giving GSK one of the strongest positions in the field. Its respiratory and immunology portfolio, historically built on asthma and COPD drugs, is increasingly moving into broader inflammatory diseases, while oncology, though still smaller, is expected to contribute more meaningfully to growth over time. GSK continues to target more than £40 billion ($53.5 billion) in sales by 2031, and says that ambition can be delivered through its current portfolio and pipeline. At the same time, GSK’s own disclosures make clear that the outlook has to be managed through the loss of exclusivity, one of the main risks hanging over its HIV franchise. Suggested Articles Pulmonary hypertension after Winrevair: where GSK’s $950M bet fits A surge in deals: GSK bets on ADC, neuro and fibrotic diseases to bolster drug development In its 2025 results communication, commercial chief Luke Miels said the company’s first priority was topline growth, specifically “delivering our ambition for 2031 and addressing the loss of dolutegravir exclusivity,” while the second was to accelerate the pipeline and add to it through business development. GSK’s two-speed pipeline strategy: broad sourcing and selective betsAfter spinning out Haleon, GSK continued to feed its pipeline, and its recent deal activity suggests it is not relying on a single type of asset. At the early end, the company has been signing partnerships that are not about acquiring drugs but about improving how it finds them. Its deal with Muna Therapeutics, for example, is built around analyzing human brain samples using spatial transcriptomics to identify targets in Alzheimer’s disease. The output here is not a candidate ready for the clinic, but a shortlist of biologically grounded targets derived directly from human tissue. A similar logic sits behind its work with Relation Therapeutics, where genetics, patient data and machine learning are used to map disease pathways in fibrosis and osteoarthritis, with GSK stepping in once targets look robust enough to support a program. GSK also made deals to extend its modality toolbox. The collaboration with Rgenta Therapeutics gives GSK access to small molecules that modulate RNA splicing, a way to influence protein production without relying on traditional enzyme or receptor targeting. In oncology, the option deal with Duality Biologics adds a preclinical antibody-drug conjugate to a modality GSK is already building internally. Even the alliance with Flagship Pioneering is structured around generating multiple early programs, with GSK retaining the right to take them forward later. Most of these deals sit at the level of targets, platforms, or early assets, and the structuring of the deals reflects that. GSK is not committing heavily upfront, and in several cases keeps the option to step in only once the science starts to translate. That approach looks very different when the company moves further downstream. The agreement to acquire 35Pharma for up to $950 million brings in HS235, an activin signalling inhibitor that has already completed phase 1 testing and is being positioned for pulmonary hypertension. Here, the question is whether a new entrant can offer a cleaner or more practical version of the same biology. With Aiolos Bio, GSK picked up a phase 2-ready anti-TSLP antibody for asthma, targeting a pathway already established in the clinic but with a longer dosing interval as a potential advantage. The deal with Chimagen Biosciences adds a clinical-stage T-cell engager aimed at B-cell-driven autoimmune diseases, extending a mechanism GSK is already pursuing in lupus. Early partnerships are used to widen the funnel and improve how targets are selected, often with limited upfront exposure. Larger acquisitions come later, once the biology is clearer, the assets are closer to the clinic, and the commercial angle is easier to define. Does GSK pipeline strategy hold together? As one of the largest pharmaceutical companies, GSK is not short of scale or established franchises, particularly in HIV and vaccines. By spreading its early bets across partnerships and option deals, the company limits its exposure at the discovery stage, where failure rates are highest. It gains access to a wider pool of targets, often supported by human data or genetics, without committing heavily before the biology is better understood. That approach is consistent with how GSK itself frames its R&D strategy, which places increasing emphasis on validated targets and external sourcing alongside internal research. Larger acquisitions tend to involve assets that are already in or near the clinic, and often sit on biology that has been at least partially validated elsewhere. In pulmonary hypertension, GSK entered the activin pathway after Winrevair had demonstrated outcome-level benefit. In asthma and autoimmune disease, it has targeted mechanisms that are already established in the clinic. That reduces scientific uncertainty and should improve the odds of translating pipeline assets into approved products. But that approach also has limits. Entering after validation means competing in spaces where the first wave has already defined expectations. In pulmonary hypertension, for example, new entrants are now judged against outcome data, not just improvements in exercise capacity. In that setting, incremental gains may not be enough unless they come with clear differentiation. At the discovery level, GSK’s partnerships span neurodegeneration, fibrosis, RNA biology, and oncology. Some of these areas connect back to its core strengths in immunology and inflammation, but others sit further away from its main commercial franchises. That does not make the strategy incoherent, but it does mean the early pipeline remains broad, and not all of those programs will translate into areas where GSK already has depth. GSK has made clear that deal-making and external innovation are part of its strategy to reach its long-term growth targets and offset future losses of exclusivity, particularly in HIV. That makes the quality of deal selection and the ability to turn those assets into meaningful products central to the strategy. GSK is trying to reduce scientific risk by entering once the biology is clearer, while still maintaining a broad enough pipeline to generate future growth. This article is reserved for subscribers Subscribe for free to continue reading.Enter your details to log in or subscribe. Email Company name Job title Continue Readingor Continue with Microsoft Continue with LinkedIn By continuing, I agree to receive Labiotech's newsletter and understand that my personal data will be processed according to the Privacy Policy. Partnering 2030: Biopharma Report 2025 Insights from 300+ biotechs and research institutes on partnering challenges, strategies, AI sentiment, and pharma partnering performance in 2025. Button CTA: Download the report Download the report Explore other topics: GSKPartnerships ADVERTISEMENT

Facts Only

GSK spun off its consumer health business into Haleon, refocusing on specialty medicines and vaccines.
In 2025, GSK generated £32.7 billion in sales, with £13.5 billion from specialty medicines and £9.2 billion from vaccines.
HIV treatments, led by ViiV Healthcare, contributed £7.7 billion, accounting for nearly a quarter of total revenue.
GSK targets over £40 billion in sales by 2031, relying on its current portfolio and pipeline.
Recent deals include partnerships with Muna Therapeutics (Alzheimer’s targets), Relation Therapeutics (fibrosis/osteoarthritis), and Rgenta Therapeutics (RNA splicing modulators).
GSK acquired 35Pharma for up to $950 million, gaining HS235, a phase 1-completed pulmonary hypertension candidate.
Other acquisitions include Aiolos Bio’s phase 2-ready anti-TSLP antibody for asthma and Chimagen Biosciences’ clinical-stage T-cell engager for autoimmune diseases.
Early-stage deals focus on target identification and platform access with limited upfront financial commitment.
Later-stage acquisitions target assets with validated biology, often in areas where GSK already has a presence.
GSK’s R&D strategy emphasizes externally sourced, validated targets alongside internal research.
The company acknowledges risks from loss of exclusivity, particularly in its HIV franchise.

Executive Summary

GSK has adopted a two-pronged strategy to bolster its pipeline and sustain growth, particularly after spinning off its consumer health division into Haleon. The company is focusing on specialty medicines and vaccines, with key revenue drivers in HIV, respiratory/immunology, oncology, and infectious diseases. In 2025, specialty medicines accounted for over 40% of GSK’s £32.7 billion in sales, with HIV alone contributing £7.7 billion. To mitigate future risks, such as the loss of exclusivity for its HIV drug dolutegravir, GSK is actively pursuing external partnerships and acquisitions. Its approach involves broad early-stage sourcing—collaborating on platforms like spatial transcriptomics and RNA-targeting small molecules—while making larger, selective bets on later-stage assets with validated biology, such as the $950 million acquisition of 35Pharma’s pulmonary hypertension candidate, HS235. This strategy balances risk by limiting upfront exposure in high-failure discovery phases while targeting clinically de-risked opportunities. However, the approach also faces challenges, including competition in validated spaces where differentiation is critical and the need to align early-stage exploration with core commercial strengths.

Full Take

GSK’s two-speed strategy reflects a calculated attempt to balance innovation with risk mitigation, but it also reveals deeper tensions in Big Pharma’s growth playbook. The strongest version of this narrative is that GSK is pragmatically adapting to patent cliffs and pipeline gaps by leveraging external innovation—casting a wide net early to identify promising biology, then doubling down only when the science is de-risked. This aligns with industry trends toward open innovation and modality diversification, and GSK deserves credit for structuring deals to minimize exposure to early-stage failure. Yet the pattern scan surfaces potential vulnerabilities: the strategy risks **ARC-0031 Confirmation Bias** by favoring validated pathways, which may lead to incrementalism rather than breakthroughs, and **ARC-0045 Bandwagon Effect** in crowded spaces like pulmonary hypertension, where differentiation is increasingly difficult. The reliance on external partnerships also raises questions about integration—can GSK effectively absorb disparate platforms without diluting its core competencies?
Root cause: This approach echoes the broader pharmaceutical paradigm shift from vertical integration to ecosystem-dependent growth, driven by the rising cost of internal R&D and the need to offset patent expirations. The unstated assumption is that external innovation can outpace internal discovery, but this depends on GSK’s ability to curate and execute—something even well-resourced firms struggle with. Implications for human agency are mixed: while patients may benefit from a broader pipeline, the focus on validated biology could stifle high-risk, high-reward research. The second-order consequence is a potential homogenization of therapeutic approaches as companies converge on the same de-risked targets.
Bridge questions: How might GSK’s early-stage bets in neurodegeneration or fibrosis reshape its long-term portfolio if they succeed? Could this strategy inadvertently create dependency on external partners, weakening internal R&D capabilities? What would it take for GSK to pivot toward more disruptive innovation rather than incremental validation?
Counterstrike scan: A coordinated influence campaign pushing this narrative might frame GSK’s strategy as a bold, data-driven evolution while downplaying the risks of incrementalism and integration challenges. The actual content, however, presents a nuanced view of both opportunities and limitations, avoiding overt hype or omission of countervailing factors. No structural alignment with manipulation patterns detected.