Biogenerics 2005: A New Level of Complexity
Scope
Report Highlights
Reasons to Purchase
Table of Contents
- CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - page 4
- Scope - page 4
- Datamonitor's opinion on the future of the biogenerics market - page 4
- Biogenerics could be on the market sooner than many might think. The EU regulatory pathway has progressed rapidly over the last two years, and Datamonitor expects the first biogeneric to be approved by 2006. In the US, the situation is less clear, and immediate progress depends on the FDA's use of the controversial 505(b)(2) pathway for insulin and growth hormones. Datamonitor nevertheless expects biogenerics to launch in the US by 2009. - page 5
- Biogenerics will require an entirely new development and marketing strategy from traditional generics. Companies need to differentiate their biogenerics: marketing and patient support will be much more important, and this will favor companies with strong financial resources and broad commercial experience. Further in the future, the development of 'superbiogenerics', or second-generation versions of biogenerics, will be a vital new growth opportunity. - page 7
- Different product types will differ greatly in their suitability as targets for biogenerics. Market size and patent expiry are not the only two considerations, as proven by the minimal interest in developing biogeneric insulin. Nevertheless, epoetin, colony stimulating factors and human growth hormone are expected to account for the majority of the $2.2 billion in forecast biogeneric sales by 2010. - page 9
- CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW - page 22
- Definition of biogenerics - page 23
- Lack of regulatory pathways for approval is the limiting factor - page 24
- Why biogenerics are now an issue - page 25
- Wave of patent expiries makes biogenerics a priority - page 25
- High cost of biologics increases the importance of biogenerics - page 26
- Technological advances allow smaller companies to make good biological copies - page 27
- Market forces: drivers and resistors to biogeneric entry - page 27
- Key Industry Organizations - page 28
- GPhA - page 28
- Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) - page 28
- PhRMA - page 29
- Commercial factors driving biogeneric approval and uptake - page 29
- High healthcare costs - page 29
- Enabling greater patient coverage - page 29
- Biotech players need to maintain a positive public reputation - page 30
- Driving innovation - page 30
- Commercial factors resisting biogeneric approval and uptake - page 31
- Branded companies' defense of their franchises - page 31
- Resistance from consumers/physicians to substitution - page 31
- Gaining public confidence: adequate clinical testing required - page 31
- Key Industry Organizations - page 28
- Process is the product - page 32
- Proving equivalence of the protein - page 32
- Glycosylation - page 33
- Proving equivalence of the end product - page 34
- Differences in formulation - page 34
- Branded view - page 35
- Scientific argument - page 35
- Legal and regulatory arguments - page 36
- Generics view - page 36
- Scientific argument - page 36
- Legal and regulatory arguments - page 36
- Conclusion - page 37
- Proving equivalence of the protein - page 32
- How to demonstrate therapeutic equivalence - page 38
- Analytical techniques - page 38
- ExSAR: characterizing 3-D protein structure - page 38
- Momenta and Procognia: analyzing glycosylation patterns - page 39
- Preclinical and clinical methods - page 40
- Analytical techniques - page 38
- Pricing of biogenerics - low enough to make an impact? - page 40
- Cost of product development - page 40
- Clinical data requirements - page 42
- Manufacturing costs - page 43
- Cost of marketing - page 43
- Pricing strategy of biogenerics - page 44
- Example of typical gross margins achievable - page 45
- Would this kind of discount change physician prescribing? - page 45
- Conclusion - page 46
- Cost of product development - page 40
- Definition of biogenerics - page 23
- CHAPTER 3 REGULATORY ISSUES IN EUROPE - page 47
- EU regulatory overview - page 48
- Timeline - page 49
- Key current documents - page 49
- European Commission: creating a legal framework - page 49
- 2001: EC starts review of pharmaceutical legislation - page 49
- Directive 2003/63/EC, including Annex I - page 50
- Directive 2004/27/EC - page 51
- EMEA: development of a regulatory framework - page 51
- Overarching guidelines - page 52
- Comparability guidelines - page 52
- Quality issues - page 54
- Non-clinical and clinical issues - page 55
- Product-specific guidelines - page 57
- European Commission: creating a legal framework - page 49
- Future developments - page 60
- Outlook - page 60
- CHAPTER 4 REGULATORY ISSUES IN THE US - page 62
- US regulatory overview - page 63
- A history of delays... - page 63
- FDA points to legal obstructions - page 64
- ...but at least some progress is being made - page 65
- Timeline - page 65
- Key chronological events - page 66
- June 2003: Transfer of protein drugs from CBER to CDER - page 66
- April 2004: Branded opposition intensifies - page 66
- June 2004: US Senate hearings on follow-on biologics - page 67
- September 2004: First FDA workshop - page 67
- February 2005: Second FDA workshop - page 68
- May 2005: USP monograph ignites debate on comparability - page 69
- July 2005: FDA guidance is imminent - page 70
- July 2005: PhRMA members disagree over new legal argument - page 70
- Key chronological events - page 66
- Future developments - page 71
- FDA draft guidance - page 71
- Legal opposition to 505(b)(2) - page 71
- New legislation from Congress - page 71
- Likely approval routes - page 71
- 505(b)(2) - page 72
- Doubts raised by Pfizer's Norvasc victory over Dr. Reddy's - page 73
- Sandoz's Omnitrope adds to the uncertainty - page 73
- New legislation enabling FDA guidelines - page 73
- 505(b)(2) - page 72
- Outlook - page 74
- US regulatory overview - page 63
- CHAPTER 5 PRODUCT TYPES AND THEIR SUITABILITY FOR BIOGENERICS - page 76
- Market opportunity - size of the global biologics markets - page 77
- Which biologics are suitable targets for biogenerics? - page 79
- Patent expiries - page 79
- Market sizes - page 81
- Comparison of products most at risk from biogenerics - page 83
- Second wave of biogeneric products - page 86
- Monoclonal antibodies and fusion proteins - page 87
- Analysis and forecasts of products likely to face the 'first wave' of biogenerics - page 87
- EPOs - page 87
- Overview - page 87
- Market size and competitors - page 88
- Second-generation epoetins - page 91
- Renal failure-induced versus chemotherapy-induced anemias - page 92
- Patent situation - page 93
- Suitability for biogenerics - page 94
- Regulatory situation - page 98
- Testing requirements for biogeneric epoetins - page 98
- Biogeneric epoetins marketed or in development - page 99
- Epoetin market forecast - page 101
- Conclusion - page 103
- Insulins - page 104
- Overview - page 104
- Market size and competitors - page 105
- Insulin analogs - page 110
- Future market development - page 112
- Patent situation - page 113
- Suitability for biogenerics - page 114
- Regulatory situation - page 117
- Testing requirements for biogeneric insulin - page 117
- Biogeneric insulin marketed or in development - page 117
- Insulin market forecast - page 119
- Conclusion - page 121
- Human growth hormone - page 122
- Overview - page 122
- Market size and competitors - page 123
- Patent situation - page 126
- Suitability for biogenerics - page 127
- Regulatory situation - page 129
- Sandoz's Omnitrope: landmark negotiations - page 130
- Testing requirements for biogeneric somatropin - page 130
- Biogeneric somatropin marketed or in development - page 130
- Human growth hormone market forecast - page 132
- Conclusion - page 134
- Colony stimulating factors (CSFs) - page 135
- Overview - page 135
- Market size and competitors - page 136
- Patent situation - page 140
- Suitability for biogenerics - page 141
- Regulatory situation - page 142
- Testing requirements for biogeneric G-CSF - page 142
- Biogeneric CSFs marketed or in development - page 143
- Colony stimulating factor market forecast - page 146
- Conclusion - page 149
- Interferon alpha - page 149
- Overview - page 150
- Market size and competitors - page 151
- Future market entrants - page 155
- Patent situation - page 156
- Suitability for biogenerics - page 156
- Regulatory situation - page 159
- Biogeneric interferon alpha marketed or in development - page 159
- Interferon alpha market forecast - page 161
- Conclusion - page 164
- Interferon beta - page 164
- Overview - page 165
- Market size and competitors - page 166
- Patent situation - page 168
- Regulatory situation - page 170
- Suitability for biogenerics - page 170
- Biogeneric interferon beta marketed or in development - page 172
- Interferon beta market forecast - page 173
- Conclusion - page 175
- Other proteins - page 176
- Cerezyme (imiglucerase) - page 176
- Factor VIII - page 178
- Interferon gamma - page 179
- Urokinase - page 179
- Alteplase - page 180
- Streptokinase - page 181
- Hepatitis B vaccines - page 181
- Interleukins - page 182
- EPOs - page 87
- Second-wave biogenerics - page 182
- Other biologics not immediately amenable to biogenerics - page 182
- Blood or plasma-derived products and their recombinant alternatives - page 182
- Other complex biologic products - page 183
- Vaccines - page 183
- Antibodies - page 183
- Heparins: not classified as biogenerics - page 183
- Other biologics not immediately amenable to biogenerics - page 182
- Forecast sales of biogenerics - page 184
- CHAPTER 6 COMPANIES WITH THE CAPABILITIES TO ENTER THE BIOGENERICS MARKET - page 186
- Barriers to biogeneric market entry - page 187
- The key factor is higher development costs for biogenerics - page 188
- Clinical trials: can (or will) generics companies get involved? - page 188
- Development costs will primarily discourage late market entrants - page 188
- Marketing: a new type of generic business model - page 189
- Biotechnology expertise - page 190
- Cell lines - page 190
- Pharmacovigilance monitoring - page 191
- Regulatory expertise and compliance - page 191
- Complex patent situation: legal expertise required - page 191
- Case study: Dynepo - page 192
- Controlling manufacturing cost - page 193
- Acquisition/partnership - page 193
- Outsourcing - page 194
- Build own facility - page 195
- The key factor is higher development costs for biogenerics - page 188
- Strategies for success: remaining competitive in a dynamic market - page 195
- Low cost base - page 196
- Differentiation of biogenerics against competitors - page 196
- Effective marketing and strong brand reputation - page 197
- Line extensions, novel formulations - page 198
- Superbiogenerics - the next level - page 198
- Superbiogeneric products under development - page 199
- Neose Technologies: PEGylated interferon alpha and several other partnered projects - page 199
- BioGeneriX: PEGylated G-CSF and other undisclosed protein - page 199
- Maxygen: various pegylated interferons, CSF and Factor VII - page 199
- BioPartners: various slow-release products - page 200
- Phage Biotechnology: various PEGylated products - page 200
- Inhaled insulins: Nektar Therapeutics'/Pfizer's Exubera, Aradigm/Novo Nordisk's AERx and MannKind's Technosphere Insulin System - page 200
- Cangene: long-acting human growth hormone - page 201
- Dragon Pharmaceutical: slow-release EPO - page 201
- Superbiogeneric products under development - page 199
- Biosimilar or "me-too" stand-alone development approach - page 201
- Key biogenerics companies profiled - page 202
- Teva (and its subsidiary SICOR) - page 203
- Overview - page 204
- Biogeneric product portfolio and pipeline - page 204
- Partners - page 206
- Strategy - page 206
- Outlook - page 207
- Sandoz - page 208
- Overview - page 209
- Biogeneric product portfolio/pipeline - page 209
- Partners - page 211
- Strategy - page 211
- Outlook - page 212
- BioPartners - page 212
- Overview - page 212
- Biogeneric product portfolio/pipeline - page 213
- Partners - page 214
- Strategy - page 216
- Outlook - page 216
- BioGeneriX (ratiopharm group) - page 217
- Overview - page 217
- Biogeneric product portfolio/pipeline - page 218
- Partners - page 219
- Strategy - page 219
- Outlook - page 220
- Stada (through Bioceuticals) - page 221
- Overview - page 221
- Biogeneric product portfolio/pipeline - page 221
- Partners - page 222
- Strategy - page 222
- Outlook - page 223
- Pliva - page 223
- Overview - page 224
- Biogeneric product portfolio/pipeline - page 224
- Partners - page 225
- Strategy - page 226
- Outlook - page 227
- Cangene - page 227
- Overview - page 227
- Biogeneric product portfolio/pipeline - page 228
- Partners - page 230
- Strategy - page 230
- Outlook - page 231
- GeneMedix - page 231
- Overview - page 231
- Financial position - page 232
- Products - page 232
- Manufacturing - page 234
- Technology - page 234
- Partners - page 234
- Strategy - page 236
- Outlook - page 236
- Phage Biotechnology - page 237
- Overview - page 237
- Technology - page 237
- Biogeneric product portfolio/pipeline - page 238
- Partners - page 240
- Strategy - page 240
- Outlook - page 241
- Dragon Pharmaceutical - page 242
- Overview - page 242
- Biogeneric product portfolio/pipeline - page 243
- Strategy - page 244
- Partners - page 244
- Outlook - page 245
- Indian biogenerics players - page 246
- Wockhardt - page 247
- Biocon - page 248
- Bharat Biotech - page 248
- Shantha Biotech - page 249
- Dr. Reddy's - page 249
- Chinese biogenerics players - page 250
- Other biogenerics companies - page 251
- Barr Pharmaceuticals: Duramed Research - page 251
- Neose Technologies - page 252
- Microbix Biosystems - page 253
- Aceto - page 254
- CJ Corporation - page 254
- Teva (and its subsidiary SICOR) - page 203
- Barriers to biogeneric market entry - page 187
- CHAPTER 7 COMPANIES WITH PRODUCTS AT RISK - STRATEGIES AND CASE STUDIES - page 255
- Strategies to maintain market share - page 256
- Patent protection - page 256
- Pegylation - page 257
- Nektar Therapeutics - page 258
- Neose Technologies - page 259
- BiopolyMed - page 259
- Other pegylation technologies - page 259
- Limitations of pegylation as a lifecycle management strategy - page 260
- Novel delivery systems - page 260
- Pricing strategy - page 262
- Case studies-companies at risk - page 263
- Roche - page 265
- Roferon-A - page 265
- NeoRecormon - page 267
- Amgen - page 269
- Epogen - page 269
- Neupogen - page 271
- Johnson & Johnson - page 273
- Procrit/Eprex - page 273
- Eli Lilly - page 275
- Humulin - page 275
- Humatrope - page 276
- Novo Nordisk - page 277
- Novolin - page 277
- Norditropin - page 278
- Serono - page 279
- Serostim/Saizen - page 279
- Rebif - page 280
- Biogen Idec - page 282
- Avonex - page 282
- Sanofi Aventis - page 283
- Insuman - page 283
- Schering-Plough - page 283
- Intron A - page 283
- Pfizer - page 284
- Genotropin - page 284
- Roche - page 265
- Strategies to maintain market share - page 256
- CHAPTER 8 APPENDIX : SUPPORTING DATA - page 285
- Financial data - page 285
- Exchange rates - page 285
- Methodology of sales data collection and forecasting - page 286
- Forecasting methodology - page 286
- Financial data - page 285
- List of Tables
- Table 1: Production systems used for different biological product types - page 33
- Table 2: Sales of biologics and total pharmaceuticals by 56 leading pharmaceutical companies, 2001-2010 - page 78
- Table 3: Patent expiries of selected key biologic pharmaceuticals - page 80
- Table 4: Global combined market sizes** for sales of key first-generation biologic product types (assuming no biogenerics), 2003-10 - page 82
- Table 5: Analysis of classes most at risk from biogeneric competition - page 85
- Table 6: Sales of leading epoetin products worldwide - page 88
- Table 7: Biogeneric epoetin products - page 99
- Table 8: Biogeneric epoetin is forecast strong uptake in the five major EU markets between 2006 and 2010 - page 101
- Table 9: Sales of leading human insulin products worldwide - page 106
- Table 10: Sales of leading insulin analog products worldwide - page 107
- Table 11: Biogeneric insulin products - page 118
- Table 12: Biogeneric insulin is expected to have minimal impact on sales of insulin products in the five major EU markets, 2004-10 ($m) - page 119
- Table 13: Sales of leading somatropin products worldwide - page 123
- Table 14: Biogeneric somatropin products - page 131
- Table 15: Biogeneric human growth hormone is expected to capture just under half of the branded market size in the five major EU markets by 2010 ($m) - page 133
- Table 16: Biogeneric human growth hormone is expected to capture just under half of the branded market size in the US market by 2010 ($m) - page 134
- Table 17: Sales of leading CSF products worldwide - page 136
- Table 18: Biogeneric colony stimulating factors marketed or in development - page 143
- Table 19: Sales of biogeneric G-CSF are expected to exceed branded G-CSF sales in the five major EU markets by 2010 ($m) - page 146
- Table 20: Sales of leading interferon alpha products worldwide - page 151
- Table 21: Biogeneric interferon alpha marketed or in development - page 159
- Table 22: Sales of biogeneric interferon alpha are expected to almost eradicate branded interferon alpha sales in the five major EU markets by 2010 ($m) - page 162
- Table 23: Currently marketed interferon beta products - page 165
- Table 24: Sales of leading interferon beta (IFN beta) products worldwide - page 166
- Table 25: Key patents covering interferon beta - page 168
- Table 26: Biogeneric interferon beta marketed or in development - page 172
- Table 27: Sales of biogeneric interferon beta are expected to have little impact in the five major EU markets by 2010 ($m) - page 174
- Table 28: Teva's biogeneric product portfolio and pipeline - page 204
- Table 29: Sandoz' biogeneric product portfolio and pipeline - page 209
- Table 30: BioPartners' biogeneric product portfolio and pipeline - page 213
- Table 31: BioGeneriX's biogeneric product portfolio and pipeline - page 218
- Table 32: Bioceuticals' biogeneric product portfolio and pipeline - page 221
- Table 33: Pliva's biogeneric product portfolio and pipeline - page 224
- Table 34: Cangene's biogeneric product portfolio and pipeline - page 228
- Table 35: GeneMedix's biogeneric product portfolio and pipeline - page 232
- Table 36: Phage Biotechnology's biogeneric product portfolio and pipeline - page 238
- Table 37: Dragon Pharmaceutical's biogeneric product portfolio and pipeline - page 243
- Table 38: Biogeneric products already marketed in India - page 247
- Table 39: Marketed products from Chinese biogenerics manufacturers - page 250
- Table 40: Superbiogeneric products developed by Neose Technologies - page 252
- Table 41: Key products using Nektar Therapeutics' technology - page 258
- Table 42: Companies with key products at risk from biogenerics - page 264
- Table 43: Exchange rates*, 2004 - page 285
- List of Figures
- Figure 1: Datamonitor expects the initial market leaders to be those with the greatest financial backing and commercial expertise - page 8
- Figure 2: Global combined market sizes for key first-generation biologic product types (assuming no biogenerics), 2003-10 - page 9
- Figure 3: Comparison of numbers of biogeneric products in development shows that CSFs and epoetin are the two most popular classes - page 10
- Figure 4: Forecast sales of the six major classes of biogenerics in Western markets, 2005-2010 - page 11
- Figure 5: Timelines of legal and regulatory progress towards a biogeneric approval pathway in the EU - page 49
- Figure 6: Global sales of biologics and total pharmaceuticals by 56 leading pharmaceutical companies, 2001-2010 - page 77
- Figure 7: Global combined market sizes for key first-generation biologic product types (assuming no biogenerics), 2003-10 - page 82
- Figure 8: Biogeneric epoetin is forecast strong uptake in the five major EU markets between 2006 and 2010 - page 103
- Figure 9: Biogeneric insulin is expected to have minimal impact on sales of insulin products in the five major EU markets, 2004-10 ($m) - page 120
- Figure 10: Sales of biogeneric G-CSF are expected to exceed branded G-CSF sales in the five major EU markets by 2010 ($m) - page 148
- Figure 11: Sales of biogeneric interferon alpha are expected to almost eradicate branded interferon alpha sales in the five major EU markets by 2010 ($m) - page 163
- Figure 12: Sales of biogeneric interferon beta are expected to have little impact in the five major EU markets by 2010 ($m) - page 175
- Figure 13: Comparison of numbers of biogeneric products in development shows that CSFs and epoetin are the two most popular classes - page 184
- Figure 14: Forecast sales of the six major classes of biogenerics in Western markets, 2005-2010 - page 185
- Figure 15: Barriers to entry of biogenerics - page 187
- Figure 16: Datamonitor expects the initial market leaders to be those with the greatest financial backing and commercial expertise - page 203
- Figure 17: Schering-Plough sharply increased the price of Intron A after the launch of its second-generation Peg-Intron, in order to encourage patient switching - page 262
- Figure 18: Sales growth of Amgen's G-CSF franchise, 2001-2010 - page 272
Other users found this report page using the following search terms: biogenerics generics biotech monoclonal antibody therapeutic protein biogenerics biogeneric market patent gcsf india insulin development level interferon
If you can't find a report that meets your needs contact LeadDiscovery. We are one of the few report providers with extensive drug development experience and we frequently use this knowledge to help clients source the most appropriate reports or produce reports for them from scratch.