Brands & Strategies: Osteoporosis

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Exhibits

Executive Summary

• 2006-2011 Market Dynamics
• Competitive Landscape
• Brand Overview
• Physician Perception

Section 1: Introduction

• Scope of the Report
• Survey Methodology

Section 2: Disease Dynamics

• Background
• Prevalence and Diagnosis
  • Major Markets Statistics and Key Findings
  • US Statistics and Key Findings
  • Europe Statistics and Key Findings
  • Europe (continued)
  • Japan Statistics and Key Findings
• Prescribers
  • General Prescriber Trends
  • Key Drivers of Prescriber Decisions
• Treatment Dynamics
  • Existing Therapies
• Reimbursement Issues

Section 3: Competitive Analysis

• Overview of Competitive Landscape
• Brand Overview
  • Currently Marketed Brands
  • Comparative Labeling of Major Brands
  • Comparative Pricing of Major Brands
• Promotional Spending
• Physician Perceptions
  • Perceptions of Competitors in Osteoporosis
  • Perceptions of Brands in Osteoporosis

Section 4: Established Competitors

Merck & Co.

• Strategic Overview
  • Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
  • Goals and Vision in Osteoporosis
  • Current Positioning
  • Market Strategy
  • Outlook
• Fosamax
  • Current Positioning
  • Fosamax Competitive Analysis
  • Key Brand Strategies
  • Future Positioning

Eli Lilly

• Strategic Overview
  • Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
  • Goals and Vision in Osteoporosis
  • Current Positioning
  • Market Strategy
  • Outlook
• Evista
  • Current Positioning
  • Evista Competitive Analysis
  • Key Brand Strategies
  • Future Positioning
• Forteo
  • Current Positioning
  • Forteo Competitive Analysis
  • Key Brand Strategies
  • Future Positioning
• Emerging: arzoxifene
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning

Procter & Gamble

• Strategic Overview
  • Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
  • Goals and Vision in Osteoporosis
  • Current Positioning
  • Market Strategy
  • Outlook
• Actonel
  • Current Positioning
  • Actonel Competitive Analysis
  • Key Brand Strategies
  • Future Positioning
• Didronel
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning

Sanofi-Aventis

• Strategic Overview
  • Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
  • Goals and Vision in Osteoporosis
  • Current Positioning
  • Outlook

Novartis

• Strategic Overview
  • Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
  • Goals and Vision in Osteoporosis
  • Current Positioning
  • Market Strategy
  • Outlook
• Miacalcin
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning
• Emerging - Reclast
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning

Wyeth

• Strategic Overview
  • Women' s Health & Bone Product Portfolio
  • Goals and Vision in Women' s Health & Bone
  • Current Positioning
  • Market Strategy
  • Outlook
• Premarin Franchise
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning
• Emerging - Viviant
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning
• Emerging - Aprela
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning

Section 5: Emerging Competitors

Roche

• Strategic Overview
  • Metabolism/Bone Product Portfolio
  • Market Strategy and Outlook in Osteoporosis
• Boniva
  • Current Positioning
  • Boniva Competitive Analysis
  • Future Positioning

GlaxoSmithKline

• Strategic Overview
  • Metabolic Product Portfolio
  • Market Strategy and Outlook in Osteoporosis

Servier

• Strategic Overview
  • Osteoporosis Product Portfolio and Current Positioning
  • Goals and Outlook in Osteoporosis
• Emerging - Protelos
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning

Amgen

• Strategic Overview
  • Osteoporosis Product Portfolio and Current Positioning
  • Goals and Outlook in Osteoporosis
• Emerging - denosumab
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning

Section 6: Market Forecast

• Market Overview
  • Drug Sales by Region
  • Drug Sales by Class
• Osteoporosis Market Forecast
  • Bisphosphonates
  • SERMs
  • PTH Analogues
  • Others

Section 7: Appendices

• Acronyms and Abbreviations
• Bibliography
• Methodology
  • Epidemiology
  • Market Forecast
  • Emerging Therapy Prices
  • Competitive Analysis

Table of Exhibits

Executive Summary

• Exhibit 1: Key Parameters of the Osteoporosis Market
• Exhibit 2: Osteoporosis Market ($US), by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 3: Osteoporosis Market Competitive Position, 2006 and 2011
• Exhibit 4: Osteoporosis Brand Sales ($US), by Brand, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 5: Physician Rankings of Companies in Osteoporosis Treatment

Section 1: Introduction

• Exhibit 6: Surveyed Physicians' Years of Practice
• Exhibit 7: Surveyed Physicians' Patients per Month

Section 2: Disease Dynamics

• Exhibit 8: Osteoporosis and Osteopenia Prevalence and Diagnosis, Major Markets
• Exhibit 9: Combined Diagnosed, Prevalent Population of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia, Major Markets
• Exhibit 10: Prevalent and Diagnosed Osteoporosis and Osteopenia Populations, US, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 11: European Prevalent and Diagnosed Osteoporosis and Osteopenia Populations, by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 12: European Osteoporosis Prevalence, by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 13: Prevalent and Diagnosed Osteoporosis and Osteopenia Populations, Japan, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 14: Physician Preference for Mechanisms of Action in Osteoporosis Therapy
• Exhibit 15: Key Efficacy End Points in Osteoporosis Clinical Trials
• Exhibit 16: Physician Response to Marketing Messages in Osteoporosis, using Generic Brand X
• Exhibit 17: Physician Selections of Optimal Dosing Frequency for Osteoporosis Therapy, with Rationales
• Exhibit 18: Bisphosphonates Competitive Analysis
• Exhibit 19: Selective Estrogen-Receptor Modulators Competitive Analysis
• Exhibit 20: Parathyroid Hormone Analogues Competitive Analysis
• Exhibit 21: Strontium Salts Competitive Analysis
• Exhibit 22: Hormone Replacement Therapy Competitive Analysis
• Exhibit 23: Calcitonin Competitive Analysis
• Exhibit 24: Typical Osteoporosis Treatment Algorithm, Major Markets

Section 3: Competitive Analysis

• Exhibit 25: Osteoporosis Sales ($US), by Country, 2006
• Exhibit 26: Osteoporosis Market Competitive Position, 2006 and 2011
• Exhibit 27: Osteoporosis Market ($US), by Company, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 28: Notable Events in the Osteoporosis Market with Physician Ratings of Impact, 2007-2011
• Exhibit 29: Major Brands Used for Osteoporosis and Osteopenia, 2006
• Exhibit 30: FDA Label Claims of Major Osteoporosis Brands, 2007
• Exhibit 31: EMEA Label Claims of Major Osteoporosis Brands, 2007
• Exhibit 32: Price per Treated Day of Leading Brands in Osteoporosis ($US), 2006
• Exhibit 33: Promotional Spend for Osteoporosis Therapies, by Company, 2006
• Exhibit 34: Promotional Spend for Osteoporosis Therapies, by Brand, 2006
• Exhibit 35: Physician Rankings of Osteoporosis Brands, by Amount of Promotional Material
• Exhibit 36: Physician Rankings of Osteoporosis Brands, by Frequency of Patient Requests
• Exhibit 37: Company Reputations in Osteoporosis Treatment, Graphical Representation
• Exhibit 38: Physician Rankings of Osteoporosis Competitors
• Exhibit 39: Relative Importance of Company Attributes to Physician Opinions
• Exhibit 40: Physician Rankings of Best Company in Osteoporosis Treatment
• Exhibit 41: Top Five Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis, 2001-2006
• Exhibit 42: Top Five Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis, 2007-2011
• Exhibit 43: Top Three Companies in Osteoporosis, Past and Future, by Reputation
• Exhibit 44: Top-of-Mind Osteoporosis Brands
• Exhibit 45: Characteristics of Major Bisphosphonate Brands, by Net Advantage-Disadvantage Difference
• Exhibit 46: Characteristics of Major Bisphosphonate Brands, by Net Advantage-Disadvantage Difference
• Exhibit 47: Primary Reason Patients Discontinue Bisphosphonate Therapy, as a % of Total by Brand, 2007
• Exhibit 48: Physician Rankings of Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis, Merck, Past and Future, by Specialty

Section 4: Established Competitors

• Exhibit 49: Top-of-Mind Companies in Osteoporosis
• Exhibit 50: Physician Perceptions of Merck in Osteoporosis, 2007
• Exhibit 51: Summary of Merck' s Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
• Exhibit 52: Market Share of Top Three Osteoporosis Companies, 2006 and 2011
• Exhibit 53: Physician Perceptions of Fosamax
• Exhibit 54: Physician Perceptions of Fosamax, with Net Advantage-Disadvantage Difference
• Exhibit 55: Patient' s Reasons for Discontinuing Fosamax Therapy
• Exhibit 56: Variations in Physician Perceptions of Fosamax, by Net Advantage-Disadvantage Difference
• Exhibit 57: Fosamax' s Key Fracture Efficacy Trials
• Exhibit 58: Fosamax Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 59: Fosamax and Alendronate Generic Revenue ($US), 2006-2011
• Exhibit 60: Fosamax Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 61: Physician Rankings of Eli Lilly' s Osteoporosis Reputation, 2001-2006
• Exhibit 62: Physician Perceptions of Eli Lilly in Osteoporosis
• Exhibit 63: Physician Perceptions of Eli Lilly in Osteoporosis, Gynecologists vs. PCPs
• Exhibit 64: Summary of Eli Lilly' s Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
• Exhibit 65: Physician Rankings of Eli Lilly' s Osteoporosis Reputation, 2007-2011
• Exhibit 66: Eli Lilly' s Osteoporosis Revenue, by Brand, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 67: Eli Lilly' s Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Brand, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 68: Evista Osteoporosis Market Share, by Country, 2006
• Exhibit 69: Physician Perceptions of Evista
• Exhibit 70: Physician Perceptions of Evista, with Net Advantage-Disadvantage Difference
• Exhibit 71: Patient' s Reasons for Discontinuing Evista Therapy
• Exhibit 72: Physician Reasons for Not Prescribing Evista
• Exhibit 73: Variations in Physician Perceptions of Evista
• Exhibit 74: Trials Supporting Evista' s Use as a Prophylaxis against Breast Cancer
• Exhibit 75: Price to Treat per Day ($US), Evista compared to Fosamax, by Country, 2006
• Exhibit 76: Physician Impressions of Evista' s Formulary Placement Compared to Oral Bisphosphonates
• Exhibit 77: Physicians Rating Efficacy Endpoints as a Brand Advantage, Evista Compared to the Bisphosphonate Mean
• Exhibit 78:Physicians Rating of Evista, by Risk of Life-Threatening Rare Adverse Events
• Exhibit 79: Evista Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 80: Evista Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 81: Physician Perceptions of Forteo
• Exhibit 82: Physician Reasons for Not Prescribing Forteo
• Exhibit 83: Patient' s Reasons for Discontinuing Forteo Therapy
• Exhibit 84: Physician Choice for Most Optimal Osteoporosis Mode of Therapy
• Exhibit 85: Forteo' s Key Approval Trials
• Exhibit 86: Forteo Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 87: Forteo Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 88: Clinical Trials of Arzoxifene in Osteoporosis
• Exhibit 89: Expected Launch Price to Treat per Day ($US), Arzoxifene, by Country
• Exhibit 90: Expected Arzoxifene Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 91: Expected Arzoxifene Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 92: Summary of P&G' s Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
• Exhibit 93: Physician Rankings of Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis, P&G, Past and Future by Specialty
• Exhibit 94: Physician Perceptions of P&G in Osteoporosis
• Exhibit 95: Physician Perceptions of Actonel
• Exhibit 96: Physician Perceptions of Actonel, with Net Advantage-Disadvantage Difference
• Exhibit 97: Patient' s Reasons for Discontinuing Actonel Therapy
• Exhibit 98: Actonel' s Key Fracture Efficacy Trials
• Exhibit 99: Physician Perceptions of Actonel and Boniva' s GI Tolerability
• Exhibit 100: Physician Perceptions of Actonel and Fosamax' s Formulary Status
• Exhibit 101: Actonel Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 102: Actonel Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 103: Etidronate Revenue ($US), Branded Didronel and Generics, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 104: Didronel Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 105: Physician Perceptions of Sanofi-Aventis versus P&G in Osteoporosis, Total Inclusions in Top Three
• Exhibit 106: Physician Rankings of Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis, Sanofi-Aventis, Past and Future by Specialty
• Exhibit 107: Physician Perceptions of Novartis in Osteoporosis
• Exhibit 108: Summary of Novartis' Osteoporosis Product Portfolio & Research Programs
• Exhibit 109: Physician Rankings of Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis, Novartis, Past and Future, by Specialty
• Exhibit 110: Novartis' Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Brand, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 111: Novartis' Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Brand, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 112: Physician Reasons for Not Prescribing Miacalcin
• Exhibit 113: Patient' s Reasons for Discontinuing Miacalcin Therapy
• Exhibit 114: Miacalcin and Fortical Revenue ($US), 2006-2011 [Graphical Version]
• Exhibit 115: Miacalcin and Fortical Revenue ($US), 2006-2011 [Tabular Version]
• Exhibit 116: Physician Preference of Dosing Formulation, Once-Yearly IV versus Once-Weekly Oral
• Exhibit 117: Reclast Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 118: Expected Price to Treat per Day ($US), Reclast at Launch, by Country, 2008
• Exhibit 119: Reclast Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 120: Physician Perceptions of Wyeth in Osteoporosis
• Exhibit 121: Physician Rankings of Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis, Wyeth, Past and Future, by Specialty
• Exhibit 122: Wyeth' s Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Brand, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 123: Wyeth' s Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Brand, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 124: Premarin Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 125: Premarin Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 126: Clinical Trials of Viviant in Osteoporosis
• Exhibit 127: Expected Price to Treat per Day ($US), Viviant at Launch, by Country, 2008
• Exhibit 128: Expected Viviant Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 129: Expected Viviant Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 130: Clinical Trials of Aprela in Osteoporosis and Postmenopausal Symptoms
• Exhibit 131: Expected Aprela Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 132: Expected Aprela Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011[Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 133: Expected Price to Treat per Day ($US), Aprela at Launch, by Country, 2008

Section 5: Emerging Competitors

• Exhibit 134: Physician Perceptions of Roche in Osteoporosis, 2007
• Exhibit 135: Summary of Roche Group' s Osteoporosis Research Programs
• Exhibit 136: Roche Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 137: Physician Rankings of Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis Market, Roche, Past and Future, by Specialty
• Exhibit 138: Efficacy Attributes in terms of Net Advantage-Disadvantage Difference, by Brand
• Exhibit 139: Physician Perceptions of Boniva, with Net Advantage-Disadvantage Difference
• Exhibit 140: Physician Perceptions of Boniva
• Exhibit 141: Patient' s Reasons for Discontinuing Boniva Therapy
• Exhibit 142: Physician Perceptions of Oral Bisphophonates, by Dosing Frequency
• Exhibit 143: Physician Perceptions of Oral Bisphosphonates, by Gastrointestinal Tolerability
• Exhibit 144: Physician Perceptions of Oral Bisphosphonates, by Quality of DTC Advertising
• Exhibit 145: Brands with Most Patient Requests, as a % of Total
• Exhibit 146: Physician Perceptions of Oral Bisphosphonates, by Formulary Position
• Exhibit 147: Expected Boniva Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 148: Expected Boniva Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 149: Physician Perceptions of GlaxoSmithKline in Osteoporosis, 2007
• Exhibit 150: Summary of GSK' s Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
• Exhibit 151: GlaxoSmithKline Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 152: Physician Rankings of Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis, GSK, Past and Future by Specialty
• Exhibit 153: Protelos Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 154: Protelos Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 155: Expected Denosumab Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 156: Expected Denosumab Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 157: Expected Price to Treat per Day ($US), Denosumab at Launch, by Country, 2008

Section 6: Market Forecast

• Exhibit 158: Osteoporosis Market ($US), Major Markets, 2006-2011 (Graphical Format)
• Exhibit 159: Osteoporosis Market ($US), Major Markets, 2006-2011 (Tabular Format)
• Exhibit 160: Osteoporosis Market ($US), by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 161: Osteoporosis Market ($US), by Drug Class, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 162: Osteoporosis Market ($US), by Drug Class, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 163: Osteoporosis Branded Bisphosphonate Market ($US), by Drug, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 164: Osteoporosis SERM Market ($US), by Drug, 2006-2011