'Big Pharma' Turns to Biologics for Growth to 2010

Summary

'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

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
  • 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