'Big Pharma' Turns to Biologics for Growth to 2010: Financial and strategic segmentation of the 'Big Pharma' sector by drug technology

Table of Contents

• CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
  • Scope
    • Big Pharma peer set
    • Biologics to drive Big Pharma sales growth
    • mAbs act as key growth component
    • The technology lifecycle
      • Small molecules
      • Therapeutic proteins
      • mAbs
      • Vaccines
    • Competitive forces
      • Generic competition
      • Pricing leverage - addressing unmet patient need
      • Access to drug technology supply chain
• CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF BIG PHARMA PEER SET
  • Key findings
  • The Big Pharma peer set
    • Product type definitions
      • Small molecules
      • Biologics
      • Monoclonal antibodies
      • Therapeutic proteins
    • Generic competition vs. bio-similars
    • The marriage of Big Pharma and biotech
    • Amgen - 'The one that got away from Big Pharma'
    • Report overview
• CHAPTER 3 SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS OF BIG PHARMA BY DRUG TYPE
  • Key findings
  • Structure of Chapter 3
  • Overview of Big Pharma peer set
    • Sales by company
    • Sales by therapy area
    • Sales by drug type
      • Small molecules
      • The blockbuster growth model
      • Biologics
      • Vaccines
      • Biologics to drive peer set growth
      • Sub-segmentation of the biologics market
      • Therapeutic proteins overview
      • Monoclonal antibodies overview
    • Therapeutic protein sales by therapy area
      • Product analysis
      • Company analysis
    • mAb sales by therapy area
      • Product analysis
      • Company analysis
      • Conclusions
• CHAPTER 4 THE COMPETITIVE FORCES ACTING ON DIFFERENT DRUG TYPES
  • Key findings
  • Introduction
    • Growth rate trajectories by product type
      • Relative positioning of product types in technology lifecycle
      • Exposure to generic competition
      • Other competitive forces
    • Adressing unmet patient need & pricing leverage with healthcare providers
      • Introduction
    • Access to technology supply chain
      • Introduction
• CHAPTER 5 ROCHE AND NOVARTIS - GROWTH BY BIOLOGICS VERSUS SMALL MOLECULES
  • Key findings
    • Case Study: Roche and Genentech
      • Roche leads in drug type diversification...
      • ...sharpest focus on mAbs
      • Roche ahead of the game...
      • ...will drive strongest peer set growth 2004-10
      • Roche - best in (mAb) class
      • Genentech partnership
      • Unprecedented success in mAb therapies
      • The key products
      • Roche's long-term strategy rewarded
      • Roche/Genentech licensing agreement
      • mAb growth underplays Roche's revival
    • Case study: Novartis - the non biologics growth strategy
      • Novartis' generics strategy
      • Bio-similars market beckons
      • Shift into vaccines
      • Small molecule success stories
  • List of Tables
    • Table 1: Overview of Big Pharma peer set
    • Table 2: General characteristics of small molecule drugs vs. biologics
    • Table 3: Big Pharma revenues by company, 2001-10f ($m)
    • Table 4: Big Pharma ethical drug revenues CAGR by company (%), 2001-10f
    • Table 5: Change in annual big pharma ethical drug sales ($m), 2001-04, 2004-07 and 2007-10
    • Table 6: Big Pharma revenues by therapy area ($m), 2001-10f
    • Table 7: Big Pharma ethical drug revenues CAGR by therapy area ($), 2001-10f
    • Table 8: Change in annual Big Pharma ethical drug sales by therapy area ($m), 2001-04, 2004-07 and 2007-10
    • Table 9: Big Pharma revenues by drug type ($m), 2001-10f
    • Table 10: Big Pharma revenue CAGR by drug type (%), 2001-10f
    • Table 11: Change in annual Big Pharma ethical drug sales ($m), 2001-04, 2004-07 and 2007-10
    • Table 12: Big Pharma biologics revenue by product type ($m), 2001-10f
    • Table 13: Big Pharma revenue CAGR by biologic product type (%), 2001-10f
    • Table 14: Change in annual Big Pharma sales by biologic product type ($m), 2001-04, 2004-07 and 2007-10)
    • Table 15: Big Pharma therapeutic protein revenues by therapy area ($m), 2001-10f
    • Table 16: Big Pharma therapeutic protein revenue CAGR by therapy area (%), 2001-10f
    • Table 17: Change in annual Big Pharma therapeutic protein revenues ($m), 2001-04, 2004-07 and 2007-10
    • Table 18: Leading Big Pharma therapeutic protein drugs revenues ($m), 2004-10
    • Table 19: Big Pharma mAb revenues by therapy area ($m), 2001-10f
    • Table 20: Big Pharma mAb revenue CAGR by therapy area, 2001-2010f (US$ m)
    • Table 21: Change in annual Big Pharma mAb revenues by therapy area ($m), 2001-04, 2004-07 and 2007-10
    • Table 22: Leading mAb products by 2010 revenues ($m), 2004-10
    • Table 23: CAGR by drug type (%), 2001-10f
  • List of Figures
    • Figure 1: Pfizer will retain its market leading position, but Roche and Novartis will record the strongest sales growth out to 2010
    • Figure 2: CAGR by product type (%), 2001-04, 2004-07 and 2007-10
    • Figure 3: Biologics are expected to act as the primary growth driver for the Big Pharma peer set, accounting for c60% of absolute annual sales growth over 2004-10
    • Figure 4: mAbs - the 'second wave' of product technology to emerge from the biotech sector - will overtake therapeutic protein sales (within the Big Pharma peer set) by 2008 ($bn)
    • Figure 5: Respective positioning of drug types in the technology lifecycle during 2001-10 - mAbs positioned just after inflection point, small molecules significantly more mature (Ymax = Year of inflection point (maximum growth rate)
    • Figure 6: Respective Technology Lifecycles for each product type based on real (company-reported and Datamonitor forecast) data
    • Figure 7: Overview of competitive forces driving drug type revenue performance
    • Figure 8: A breakdown of small molecule absolute annual sales growth by lifecycle phase indicated considerable drag from patent expiries - causing small molecule sales growth to treadmill
    • Figure 9: Big Pharma ethical drug sales split by Biologics and Non-Biologics revenues illustrates the dominant position expected to be held by Roche in 2010 (%)
    • Figure 10: The business strategies of Roche and Novartis are clearly different but share a similarity in so far that they have shifted a notable focus away from the branded small molecule market
    • Figure 11: Big Pharma ethical drug revenues by company ($bn), 2001-10f
    • Figure 12: Change in annual big pharma ethical drug sales ($bn), 2004-10
    • Figure 13: Big Pharma ethical drug revenues by therapy area ($m), 2001-10f
    • Figure 14: Change in annual Big Pharma ethical drug sales by therapy area ($bn), 2004-10
    • Figure 15: Big Pharma Ethical Drug Revenues by Product Type ($bn), 2001-10f
    • Figure 16: Change in annual Big Pharma ethical drug sales by product type ($bn), 2004-10f
    • Figure 17: Big Pharma Biologics Revenue by Product Type ($bn), 2001-10f
    • Figure 18: Change in annual Big Pharma sales by biologic product type ($bn), 2004-10
    • Figure 19: Big Pharma therapeutic protein revenues by therapy area ($bn), 2001-10f
    • Figure 20: Change in annual Big Pharma therapeutic protein revenues ($bn), 2004-10
    • Figure 21: Big Pharma therapeutic protein revenues by company ($bn), 2001-10f
    • Figure 22: Big Pharma mAb revenues by therapy area ($bn), 2001-10f
    • Figure 23: Annual Change in Big Pharma mAb Revenues by Therapeutic Area ($bn), 2004-10f
    • Figure 24: Big Pharma mAb revenues by company ($bn), 2001-10f
    • Figure 25: Big Pharma Ethical Drug Revenues by Company and Biologic/Non Biologic Split 2001 and 2010
    • Figure 26: Annual Increase in Big Pharma Sales by Product Type, 2004-2010 ($ bn)
    • Figure 27: CAGR by product type (%), 2001-04, 2004-07 and 2007-10
    • Figure 28: Position of drug types in Big Pharma technology lifecycle during time period, 2001-10
    • Figure 29: Technology lifecycle/sales growth curve by product type based on reported and forecast data ($m), 2001-10
    • Figure 30: Idealized growth curve by product type for 2001-10 time window
    • Figure 31: Evolution of mAb technology lifecycle by growth phase
    • Figure 32: Evolution of statin class technology lifecycle
    • Figure 33: Intensity of generic erosion in relation to position of product type in technology lifecycle
    • Figure 34: Breakdown of small molecule absolute annual sales growth by launch, core and expiry ($bn), 2004-10
    • Figure 35: Breakdown of therapeutic protein absolute annual sales growth by launch, core and expiry ($bn), 2004-10
    • Figure 36: Breakdown of mAb absolute annual sales growth by launch, core and expiry ($bn), 2004-10
    • Figure 37: Intensity of generic competition by product type
    • Figure 38: Key competitive forces determining respective CAGR for small molecules, TPs, mAbs and vaccines
    • Figure 39: Absolute annual mAb sales growth by company ($bn), 2004-10
    • Figure 40: Annual change in Roche sales by product type ($bn), 2004-10
    • Figure 41: Roche absolute annual growth tree by technology and leading product ($m), 2004-10
    • Figure 42: Roche absolute annual mAb sales growth by product ($m), 2004-10
    • Figure 43: Differing Growth Strategies for Roche and Novartis