将来成長へ向け生物製剤に目を向ける大手製薬企業の収益と戦略

Abstract

Overview

Introduction

'Big Pharma' (non-biotech companies with annual revenues >$10bn) has historically focused on small molecules. However, this is set to change, with around 60% of revenue growth forecast to come from biologic products (therapeutic proteins and monoclonal antibodies): by 2010, annual sales of biologics will have increased by $26bn, compared to a $13bn increase for small molecules.

Scope

• Global sales forecasts for all Big Pharma products, split by company, therapy area and technology type, spanning the period 2001-10
• Introduction to the 'technology lifecycle' concept and assignment of each of the four drug classes to distinct positions along the lifecycle
• Evaluation of the competitive forces that impact the drug types, including generic exposure, access to new technology suppliers and pricing leverage
• Strategic assessment of Roche's relationship with Genentech, and Novartis' contrasting approach of pursuing growth in the small molecule arena

Report Highlights

Within the Big Pharma peer set, the revenue growth rate to 2010 forecast for biologics is a robust CAGR of 13.0%, outstripping the near-static CAGR of 0.9% predicted for small molecules. The small molecule growth rate is depressed by continued exposure to intense generic competition.

Big Pharma has assumed a strong position within the antibody market, a major attraction of this product type being the total absence of generic risk. In contrast, bio-similars are an emerging threat for members of the therapeutic protein class.

Roche is the leading Big Pharma player within the biologics market. It holds an extremely strong position in the antibody market thanks to its 1990 merger with Genentech. As a result, Roche is forecast to record the highest sales growth rate to 2010 within the peer set, equal to an increase in annual company sales of $14bn.

Reasons to Purchase

• Understand, in dollar terms, the changing nature of product technology within 'Big Pharma' using sales forecasts through to 2010
• Assess the competitive forces driving significantly stronger growth for antibodies in comparison to small molecules and therapeutic proteins
• Be prepared for the end-of-decade acceleration in vaccine sales and scan the horizon for future technology waves, including nucleic acid therapeutics

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