Skip to content

Contact +44 (0) 20 7060 7474 email us

Generic Drugs

Generic Benchmarking: Brand Erosion at Patent Expiry

Healthcare

Publication Date March 2009
Publisher Datamonitor
Product Type Report
Pages 93
ISBN Number not applicable
Product Code DAT01717

Price

£2,640.00
approximately: $3,997 | €2,946

pdf

Buy Now

print £2,675 ($4,050 | €2,986)

Buy Now

Order above formats by FAX

Order by Fax

Summary

Introduction

Not only is Pharma facing a continued slow down in sales growth in the seven major markets, but erosion of branded drugs by generics follow patent expiry is increasing, driven by evolving payer initiatives to incentivize generic use.

Scope

Understand brand erosion according to formulation, therapy area and brand value in the seven major markets

  • Analysis of the top 10 most eroded brands during Q2 2006 and Q2 2008
  • Overview of prices of generic drugs in the seven major markets
  • Case studies of successful and unsuccessful strategies to protect the branded franchise

Highlights

Tough competition, a focus on cost-containment and incentives for prescribing generic drugs, make the US, UK and Germany prone to severe brand erosion immediately after patent expiry. The US saw the strongest erosion for both oral and injectable drugs, reflecting the high level of generic substitution in the US compared to other markets.

Across all markets, the higher the annual sales of a branded drug, the more intense its generic erosion at patent expiry. Competition among generic players targeting high value drugs is also fierce, leading to a rapid decline in generic prices as more players enter the market.

Overall, the most heavily eroded drugs by therapy area in the US were respiratory drugs, due to the large market size and low entry barriers for generics companies, while CNS drugs experienced the lowest levels of erosion.

Reasons to Purchase

  • Identify the different factors that drive brand erosion in the seven major markets in the first 2 years of generic entry
  • Understand the average level of erosion a brand can expect to face following generic incursion, depending on its formulation, value and ATC group
  • Evaluate the success of various reformulation strategies in protecting brand franchise from generic competition

Contents

  • CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    • Scope of the report
    • Key findings
  • CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF BRAND EROSION IN THE SEVEN MAJOR MARKETS
    • Analysis of brand sales and volume erosion in the seven major markets
    • Erosion of standard oral and parenteral formulations at patent expiry in the seven major markets
    • Brand erosion in the US market
    • Brand erosion in the UK
    • Brand erosion in Germany
    • Brand erosion in France
    • Brand erosion in Spain
    • Brand erosion in Italy
    • Brand erosion in Japan
    • Top 10 most eroded brands
    • Omnicef (cefdinir, Abbott)
    • Lamisil (terbinafine, Novartis)
    • Zofran (ondansetron, GlaxoSmithKline)
    • Zyrtec (cetirizine, Pfizer)
    • Camptosar (irinotecan, Pfizer)
    • Mobic (meloxicam, Boehringer Ingelheim)
    • Coreg (carvedilol, GlaxoSmithKline)
    • Kytril (granisetron, Roche)
    • Cerebyx (fosphenytoin, Eisai)
  • CHAPTER 3 OVERVIEW OF PRICE OF GENERICS VERSUS ORIGINAL BRANDS
    • Price of generic drugs in the seven major markets
    • Generics prices in the US
    • Generics prices in the UK
    • Generics prices in Germany
    • Generics prices in France
    • Generics prices in Italy
    • Generics prices in Spain
    • Generics prices in Japan
  • CHAPTER 4 BRAND EROSION BY VALUE
    • Brand erosion by value across the seven major markets
    • Brand erosion by value in the US
    • Brand erosion by value in the UK
    • Brand erosion by value in Germany
    • Brand erosion by value in France
    • Brand erosion by value in Italy
    • Brand erosion by value in Spain
    • Brand erosion by value in Japan
  • CHAPTER 5 BRAND EROSION BY ATC GROUP
    • Overview of ATC classification
    • Brand erosion by ATC group in the US
    • Brand erosion by ATC group in the UK
    • Brand erosion by ATC group in Germany
    • Brand erosion by ATC group in France
    • Brand erosion by ATC group in Italy
    • Brand erosion by ATC group in Spain
    • Brand erosion by ATC group in Japan
  • Chapter 6 REFORMUALTIONS - EFFECTIVE PROTECTION AGAINST GENERIC EROSION?
    • Overview of reformulations
    • The effect of generic defense reformulation strategies
    • Focalin XR grew Focalin franchise despite generic competition
    • Coreg CR failed to protect the Coreg franchise from sales erosion
    • Fosamax D did not incentivize enough patients to switch to the follow-on drug
    • Pravachol's loss of sales is due to poor head-to-head studies
  • CHAPTER 7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
    • Publications and online articles
    • Datamonitor resources
  • APPENDIX
  • List of Tables
    • Table 1: Top 10 most eroded brands after 6 months of generic entry , Q2 2006-Q2 2008
  • List of Figures
    • Figure 1: Mean branded standard oral drug value ($) and volume (SU) following generic entry between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008 in the seven major markets
    • Figure 2: Incentives for generic prescribing in the US market
    • Figure 3: Mean branded standard oral and parenteral drug value ($) and volume (SU) following generic entry between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008 in the seven major markets
    • Figure 4: Mean brand erosion of oral versus parenteral drugs at patent expiry between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008 in the seven major markets
    • Figure 5: Mean branded standard oral and parenteral drug value ($) and volume (SU) following generic entry between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008 in the US market
    • Figure 6: US sales of branded meloxicam versus generic competition from Lupin, Teva and Zydus Cadila
    • Figure 7: Mean branded standard oral and parenteral drug value ($) and volume (SU) following generic entry between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008 in the UK
    • Figure 8: UK sales erosion of Propecia, Proscar, the total brand erosion and generic finasteride, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 9: Mean branded standard oral and parenteral drug value ($) and volume (SU) following generic entry between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008 in Germany
    • Figure 10: Sales erosion of Eloxatin versus generic oxaliplatin in Germany between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008
    • Figure 11: Incentives for generic prescribing in the French market
    • Figure 12: Mean branded standard oral and parenteral drug value ($) and volume (SU) following generic entry between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008 in France
    • Figure 13: Sales erosion of Norvasc/Amlor and Caduet versus generic competition in France, Q2 2007-Q2 2008
    • Figure 14: Barriers to generic erosion of brands in Spain and Italy
    • Figure 15: Mean branded standard oral and parenteral drug value ($) and volume (SU) following generic entry between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008 in Spain
    • Figure 16: Sales of Kytril in its oral and parenteral formulations versus generic competition in Spain, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 17: Mean branded standard oral and parenteral drug value ($) and volume (SU) following generic entry between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008 in Italy
    • Figure 18: Seasonal branded and generic sales erosion of cetirizine in Italy, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 19: Branded and generic sales erosion of and oxcarbazepine and zolpidem in Italy, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 20: Incentives for generic prescribing in the Japanese market
    • Figure 21: Mean branded standard oral and parenteral drug value ($) and volume (SU) following generic entry between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008 in Japan
    • Figure 22: Brand erosion (%) of cabergoline in Germany, Italy, UK and Japan, Q4 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 23: Mean generic price versus mean branded price of standard oral drugs, one quarter prior to generic entry in the seven major markets, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 24: Mean generic price versus mean branded price of standard parenteral drugs, one quarter prior to generic entry, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 25: Mean generic price versus mean branded price of oral and parenteral drugs in the US, one quarter prior to generic entry, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 26: Mean generic price versus mean branded price of oral and parenteral drugs in the UK, one quarter prior to generic entry, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 27: Mean generic price versus mean branded price of oral and parenteral drugs in Germany, one quarter prior to generic entry, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 28: Mean generic price versus mean branded price of oral and parenteral drugs in France, one quarter prior to generic entry, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 29: Mean generic price versus mean branded price of oral and parenteral drugs in Italy, one quarter prior to generic entry, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 30: Mean generic price versus mean branded price of oral and parenteral drugs in Spain, one quarter prior to generic entry, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 31: Generic price versus branded price of oral and parenteral drugs in Japan, one quarter prior to generic entry, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 32: Mean branded drug value ($) erosion following generic entry in the US, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 33: Branded drug value ($) erosion following generic entry in the UK, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 34: Sales of Coversyl and Coversyl Plus versus total generic perindopril sales in the UK, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 35: Branded drug value ($) erosion following generic entry in Germany, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 36: Branded drug value ($) erosion following generic entry in France, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 37: Branded drug value ($) erosion following generic entry in Italy, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 38: Branded drug value ($) erosion following generic entry in Spain, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 39: Branded drug value ($) erosion following generic entry in Japan, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 40: Mean branded erosion (%) of value ($) and volume (SU) according to ATC group following generic entry in the US between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008
    • Figure 41: Mean branded erosion (%) of value ($) and volume (SU) according to ATC group following generic entry in the UK between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008
    • Figure 42: Mean branded erosion (%) of value ($) and volume (SU) according to ATC group following generic entry in Germany between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008
    • Figure 43: Mean branded erosion (%) of value ($) and volume (SU) according to ATC group following generic entry in France between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008
    • Figure 44: Mean branded erosion (%) of value ($) and volume (SU) according to ATC group following generic entry in Italy between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008
    • Figure 45: Mean branded erosion (%) of value ($) and volume (SU) according to ATC group following generic entry in Spain between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008
    • Figure 46: Mean branded erosion (%) of value ($) and volume (SU) according to ATC group following generic entry in Japan between Q2 2006 and Q2 2008
    • Figure 47: Mean branded erosion (%) of value ($) and volume (SU) for reformulated drugs - Ambien, Mavik, Focalin and Coreg, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 48: Mean brand erosion of Novartis's Focalin (dexmethylphenidate) for its oral standard and oral extended formulations, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 49: Mean brand erosion of GlaxoSmithKline's Coreg (carvedilol) for its oral standard and oral extended formulations, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 50: Sales of Fosamax and Fosamax Plus D versus generic alendronic acid in the US market, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 51: Sales of Pravachol and Pravigard against generic competition in France, Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 52: Drugs experiencing generic erosion between Q1 2006 and Q2 2007
    • Figure 53: Erosion curves for each drug experiencing generic entry
    • Figure 54: Mean erosion curve for drugs A, B, and C experiencing generic entry
    • Figure 55: Mean branded erosion of value ($) and volume (SU) for ATC group A (endocrine, metabolic and genetic disorders), Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 56: Mean branded erosion of value ($) and volume (SU) for ATC group C (cardiovascular), Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 57: Mean branded erosion of value ($) and volume (SU) for ATC group D (immunology and inflammation), Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 58: Mean branded erosion of value ($) and volume (SU) for ATC group G (urology and gender-specific health), Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 59: Mean branded erosion of value ($) and volume (SU) for ATC group J (infectious diseases), Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 60: Mean branded erosion of value ($) and volume (SU) for ATC group L (oncology), Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 61: Mean branded erosion of value ($) and volume (SU) for ATC group M (musculoskeletal), Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 62: Mean branded erosion of value ($) and volume (SU) for ATC group N (central nervous system), Q2 2006-Q2 2008
    • Figure 63: Mean branded erosion of value ($) and volume (SU) for ATC group R (respiratory), Q2 2006-Q2 2008