Market Report Source

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

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

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

Competitive forces

CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF BIG PHARMA PEER SET

Key findings

The Big Pharma peer set

Product type definitions

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

Therapeutic protein sales by therapy area

mAb sales by therapy area

CHAPTER 4 THE COMPETITIVE FORCES ACTING ON DIFFERENT DRUG TYPES

Key findings

Introduction

Growth rate trajectories by product type

Adressing unmet patient need & pricing leverage with healthcare providers

Access to technology supply chain

CHAPTER 5 ROCHE AND NOVARTIS – GROWTH BY BIOLOGICS VERSUS SMALL MOLECULES

Key findings

Case Study: Roche and Genentech

Case study: Novartis – the non biologics growth strategy

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