品牌及策略：骨質疏鬆症

本報告已在2011年12月21日停止出版。

簡介

目錄

Abstract

Introduction

The osteoporosis market has traditionally been dominated by the bisphosphonate drug class, championed by Merck' s once-weekly Fosamax (alendronate) and Procter & Gamble[P&G]/Sanofi-Aventis' Actonel (risedronate). This will change dramatically over the forecast period as smaller classes gain significant share, new bisphosphonates enter the market, and Fosamax goes generic in the US. Eli Lilly will emerge as the number one drug company in osteoporosis by 2011, largely by staying away from the increasingly competitive bisphosphonate segment. Eli Lilly, which will comprise about 30% of the osteoporosis market by the end of the forecast period, has two major brands in its osteoporosis product portfolio-neither of which belongs to the dominant bisphosphonate drug class: the selective estrogen-receptor modulator (SERM) Evista (raloxifene) and a parathyroid hormone analogue (PTH) Forteo (teriparatide). In the bisphosphonate market, the traditional stalwarts from Merck, P&G, and Sanofi-Aventis are increasingly being challenged by new, less-frequently dosed therapies while operating under the looming threat of new drug classes and the genericization of the leading therapy, Fosamax.

Despite retaining the continental European patent for Fosamax, Merck' s market-leading position in bisphosphonates--which generated over $2 billion in osteoporosis revenues in 2006--will be decimated by generic versions of the drug in the US, Japan, and the UK. Merck will see its market share drop from nearly 40% in 2006 to 9% percent in 2011. Lilly is poised to fill the gap in this newly competitive market along with a number of other companies including Wyeth, Amgen, and Novartis, who will each more than double their market share by 2011. Over 20% of physicians surveyed for this report predict that Wyeth will be the most influential osteoporosis company over the next five years due to the launch of Viviant and Aprela. Gynecologists, in particular, give the company high marks on its sales force and physician and patient education. Novartis and Amgen will also gain significant share due to a once-yearly injectable bisphosphonate (Novartis' Reclast/Aclasta [zoledronate]) and a twice-yearly first-in-class biologic (Amgen' s denosumab).

Questions Answered in This Report

• - Fosamax is widely considered the first-line therapy of choice for osteoporosis treatment, however the drug loses patent protection in Japan and the US in 2008, and already lost protection in the UK in 2005. However, Merck' s drug will continue to be protected in continental Europe well past 2011. What effect will alendronate generics have on the osteoporosis market in the US? How will Merck remain active in osteoporosis after losing its major brand? How will continental European osteoporosis treatment diverge from the US, UK, and Japan after the entry of alendronate generics?
• - The SERM Evista has long been part of the osteoporosis pharmacologic armamentarium, but did not become the major bisphosphonate competitor that many observers forecasted. In September 2007, the FDA approved a breast cancer protection indication for the drug. How will Evista' s new labeling affect its sales, and the sales of new SERMs? What do doctors think of Evista relative to the oral bisphosphonates? How will emerging SERMs be positioned in the osteoporosis market?
• - Bisphosphonates can cause severe gastrointestinal irritation in a minority of patients, leading to noncompliance or even discontinuation. Ever-more-tolerable and less-frequent formulations of bisphosphonates have been pursued since this was first discovered, leading to the weekly formulations of Fosamax and Actonel, stimulating the once-monthly Boniva, and now the launch of Novartis' once-yearly Reclast (zoledronate). How important is dosing frequency to physician prescribing habits? Will less-frequent branded bisphosphonates that are largely undifferentiated from alendronate succeed against the inexpensive generic agents after 2008?
• - While SERMs and bisphophonates are osteoporosis stalwarts, new classes and drugs are being developed that will challenge these drug classes. Wyeth is preparing a successor to its major HRT franchise, Premarin, with a combination of SERM and HRT labeled Aprela (bazedoxifene/equine estrogens). This drug will purportedly combine the beneficial effects of Premarin on menopause symptoms, while providing the bone and breast tissue protection of SERMs. Meanwhile Amgen, under siege from recent difficulties with its anemia franchise, is preparing its next blockbuster, denosumab. Denosumab is a biologic member of the RANKL-inhibitor class, and will represent the first biologic in osteoporosis. How are the companies positioning emerging agents prior to their launch? What conclusions can be drawn from clinical trial design, public statements and other data sources regarding future development plans? What features of emerging agents promise to challenge current therapies?

Scope

• Markets Covered: United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, and Japan.
• Competitive Analysis: Detailed discussion of major competitors including Merck & Co., Eli Lilly, Procter & Gamble, Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Wyeth, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Servier, and Amgen. Included is an analysis of each company' s osteoporosis product portfolio, strategic positioning, and development pipeline. The report features an in-depth discussion of leading brands including approval history, sales and market position, SWOT analysis, and on-going life cycle management initiatives.
• Physician Perception of Key Brands: Analysis of physician perceptions in the psoriasis based on a custom survey of 30 US-based gynecologists and 30 US-based PCPs. The survey is brand-focused and examines physician perceptions of key competitors, brand attributes, and uptake of emerging agents.
• Epidemiology: Total prevalent and diagnosed cases of both osteoporosis and osteopenia (the precursor to osteoporosis) for each of the major markets are presented in an annualized forecast from 2006 to 2011.
• Market Forecast: Annualized sales forecasts for branded agents presented by region, drug class, molecule, and brand for 2006 to 2011, including the uptake of new agents.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Exhibits

Executive Summary

• 2006-2011 Market Dynamics
• Competitive Landscape
• Brand Overview
• Physician Perception

Section 1: Introduction

• Scope of the Report
• Survey Methodology

Section 2: Disease Dynamics

• Background
• Prevalence and Diagnosis
  • Major Markets Statistics and Key Findings
  • US Statistics and Key Findings
  • Europe Statistics and Key Findings
  • Europe (continued)
  • Japan Statistics and Key Findings
• Prescribers
  • General Prescriber Trends
  • Key Drivers of Prescriber Decisions
• Treatment Dynamics
  • Existing Therapies
• Reimbursement Issues

Section 3: Competitive Analysis

• Overview of Competitive Landscape
• Brand Overview
  • Currently Marketed Brands
  • Comparative Labeling of Major Brands
  • Comparative Pricing of Major Brands
• Promotional Spending
• Physician Perceptions
  • Perceptions of Competitors in Osteoporosis
  • Perceptions of Brands in Osteoporosis

Section 4: Established Competitors

Merck & Co.

• Strategic Overview
  • Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
  • Goals and Vision in Osteoporosis
  • Current Positioning
  • Market Strategy
  • Outlook
• Fosamax
  • Current Positioning
  • Fosamax Competitive Analysis
  • Key Brand Strategies
  • Future Positioning

Eli Lilly

• Strategic Overview
  • Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
  • Goals and Vision in Osteoporosis
  • Current Positioning
  • Market Strategy
  • Outlook
• Evista
  • Current Positioning
  • Evista Competitive Analysis
  • Key Brand Strategies
  • Future Positioning
• Forteo
  • Current Positioning
  • Forteo Competitive Analysis
  • Key Brand Strategies
  • Future Positioning
• Emerging: arzoxifene
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning

Procter & Gamble

• Strategic Overview
  • Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
  • Goals and Vision in Osteoporosis
  • Current Positioning
  • Market Strategy
  • Outlook
• Actonel
  • Current Positioning
  • Actonel Competitive Analysis
  • Key Brand Strategies
  • Future Positioning
• Didronel
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning

Sanofi-Aventis

• Strategic Overview
  • Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
  • Goals and Vision in Osteoporosis
  • Current Positioning
  • Outlook

Novartis

• Strategic Overview
  • Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
  • Goals and Vision in Osteoporosis
  • Current Positioning
  • Market Strategy
  • Outlook
• Miacalcin
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning
• Emerging - Reclast
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning

Wyeth

• Strategic Overview
  • Women' s Health & Bone Product Portfolio
  • Goals and Vision in Women' s Health & Bone
  • Current Positioning
  • Market Strategy
  • Outlook
• Premarin Franchise
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning
• Emerging - Viviant
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning
• Emerging - Aprela
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning

Section 5: Emerging Competitors

Roche

• Strategic Overview
  • Metabolism/Bone Product Portfolio
  • Market Strategy and Outlook in Osteoporosis
• Boniva
  • Current Positioning
  • Boniva Competitive Analysis
  • Future Positioning

GlaxoSmithKline

• Strategic Overview
  • Metabolic Product Portfolio
  • Market Strategy and Outlook in Osteoporosis

Servier

• Strategic Overview
  • Osteoporosis Product Portfolio and Current Positioning
  • Goals and Outlook in Osteoporosis
• Emerging - Protelos
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning

Amgen

• Strategic Overview
  • Osteoporosis Product Portfolio and Current Positioning
  • Goals and Outlook in Osteoporosis
• Emerging - denosumab
  • Current Positioning
  • Future Positioning

Section 6: Market Forecast

• Market Overview
  • Drug Sales by Region
  • Drug Sales by Class
• Osteoporosis Market Forecast
  • Bisphosphonates
  • SERMs
  • PTH Analogues
  • Others

Section 7: Appendices

• Acronyms and Abbreviations
• Bibliography
• Methodology
  • Epidemiology
  • Market Forecast
  • Emerging Therapy Prices
  • Competitive Analysis

Table of Exhibits

Executive Summary

• Exhibit 1: Key Parameters of the Osteoporosis Market
• Exhibit 2: Osteoporosis Market ($US), by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 3: Osteoporosis Market Competitive Position, 2006 and 2011
• Exhibit 4: Osteoporosis Brand Sales ($US), by Brand, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 5: Physician Rankings of Companies in Osteoporosis Treatment

Section 1: Introduction

• Exhibit 6: Surveyed Physicians' Years of Practice
• Exhibit 7: Surveyed Physicians' Patients per Month

Section 2: Disease Dynamics

• Exhibit 8: Osteoporosis and Osteopenia Prevalence and Diagnosis, Major Markets
• Exhibit 9: Combined Diagnosed, Prevalent Population of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia, Major Markets
• Exhibit 10: Prevalent and Diagnosed Osteoporosis and Osteopenia Populations, US, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 11: European Prevalent and Diagnosed Osteoporosis and Osteopenia Populations, by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 12: European Osteoporosis Prevalence, by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 13: Prevalent and Diagnosed Osteoporosis and Osteopenia Populations, Japan, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 14: Physician Preference for Mechanisms of Action in Osteoporosis Therapy
• Exhibit 15: Key Efficacy End Points in Osteoporosis Clinical Trials
• Exhibit 16: Physician Response to Marketing Messages in Osteoporosis, using Generic Brand X
• Exhibit 17: Physician Selections of Optimal Dosing Frequency for Osteoporosis Therapy, with Rationales
• Exhibit 18: Bisphosphonates Competitive Analysis
• Exhibit 19: Selective Estrogen-Receptor Modulators Competitive Analysis
• Exhibit 20: Parathyroid Hormone Analogues Competitive Analysis
• Exhibit 21: Strontium Salts Competitive Analysis
• Exhibit 22: Hormone Replacement Therapy Competitive Analysis
• Exhibit 23: Calcitonin Competitive Analysis
• Exhibit 24: Typical Osteoporosis Treatment Algorithm, Major Markets

Section 3: Competitive Analysis

• Exhibit 25: Osteoporosis Sales ($US), by Country, 2006
• Exhibit 26: Osteoporosis Market Competitive Position, 2006 and 2011
• Exhibit 27: Osteoporosis Market ($US), by Company, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 28: Notable Events in the Osteoporosis Market with Physician Ratings of Impact, 2007-2011
• Exhibit 29: Major Brands Used for Osteoporosis and Osteopenia, 2006
• Exhibit 30: FDA Label Claims of Major Osteoporosis Brands, 2007
• Exhibit 31: EMEA Label Claims of Major Osteoporosis Brands, 2007
• Exhibit 32: Price per Treated Day of Leading Brands in Osteoporosis ($US), 2006
• Exhibit 33: Promotional Spend for Osteoporosis Therapies, by Company, 2006
• Exhibit 34: Promotional Spend for Osteoporosis Therapies, by Brand, 2006
• Exhibit 35: Physician Rankings of Osteoporosis Brands, by Amount of Promotional Material
• Exhibit 36: Physician Rankings of Osteoporosis Brands, by Frequency of Patient Requests
• Exhibit 37: Company Reputations in Osteoporosis Treatment, Graphical Representation
• Exhibit 38: Physician Rankings of Osteoporosis Competitors
• Exhibit 39: Relative Importance of Company Attributes to Physician Opinions
• Exhibit 40: Physician Rankings of Best Company in Osteoporosis Treatment
• Exhibit 41: Top Five Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis, 2001-2006
• Exhibit 42: Top Five Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis, 2007-2011
• Exhibit 43: Top Three Companies in Osteoporosis, Past and Future, by Reputation
• Exhibit 44: Top-of-Mind Osteoporosis Brands
• Exhibit 45: Characteristics of Major Bisphosphonate Brands, by Net Advantage-Disadvantage Difference
• Exhibit 46: Characteristics of Major Bisphosphonate Brands, by Net Advantage-Disadvantage Difference
• Exhibit 47: Primary Reason Patients Discontinue Bisphosphonate Therapy, as a % of Total by Brand, 2007
• Exhibit 48: Physician Rankings of Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis, Merck, Past and Future, by Specialty

Section 4: Established Competitors

• Exhibit 49: Top-of-Mind Companies in Osteoporosis
• Exhibit 50: Physician Perceptions of Merck in Osteoporosis, 2007
• Exhibit 51: Summary of Merck' s Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
• Exhibit 52: Market Share of Top Three Osteoporosis Companies, 2006 and 2011
• Exhibit 53: Physician Perceptions of Fosamax
• Exhibit 54: Physician Perceptions of Fosamax, with Net Advantage-Disadvantage Difference
• Exhibit 55: Patient' s Reasons for Discontinuing Fosamax Therapy
• Exhibit 56: Variations in Physician Perceptions of Fosamax, by Net Advantage-Disadvantage Difference
• Exhibit 57: Fosamax' s Key Fracture Efficacy Trials
• Exhibit 58: Fosamax Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 59: Fosamax and Alendronate Generic Revenue ($US), 2006-2011
• Exhibit 60: Fosamax Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 61: Physician Rankings of Eli Lilly' s Osteoporosis Reputation, 2001-2006
• Exhibit 62: Physician Perceptions of Eli Lilly in Osteoporosis
• Exhibit 63: Physician Perceptions of Eli Lilly in Osteoporosis, Gynecologists vs. PCPs
• Exhibit 64: Summary of Eli Lilly' s Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
• Exhibit 65: Physician Rankings of Eli Lilly' s Osteoporosis Reputation, 2007-2011
• Exhibit 66: Eli Lilly' s Osteoporosis Revenue, by Brand, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 67: Eli Lilly' s Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Brand, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 68: Evista Osteoporosis Market Share, by Country, 2006
• Exhibit 69: Physician Perceptions of Evista
• Exhibit 70: Physician Perceptions of Evista, with Net Advantage-Disadvantage Difference
• Exhibit 71: Patient' s Reasons for Discontinuing Evista Therapy
• Exhibit 72: Physician Reasons for Not Prescribing Evista
• Exhibit 73: Variations in Physician Perceptions of Evista
• Exhibit 74: Trials Supporting Evista' s Use as a Prophylaxis against Breast Cancer
• Exhibit 75: Price to Treat per Day ($US), Evista compared to Fosamax, by Country, 2006
• Exhibit 76: Physician Impressions of Evista' s Formulary Placement Compared to Oral Bisphosphonates
• Exhibit 77: Physicians Rating Efficacy Endpoints as a Brand Advantage, Evista Compared to the Bisphosphonate Mean
• Exhibit 78:Physicians Rating of Evista, by Risk of Life-Threatening Rare Adverse Events
• Exhibit 79: Evista Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 80: Evista Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 81: Physician Perceptions of Forteo
• Exhibit 82: Physician Reasons for Not Prescribing Forteo
• Exhibit 83: Patient' s Reasons for Discontinuing Forteo Therapy
• Exhibit 84: Physician Choice for Most Optimal Osteoporosis Mode of Therapy
• Exhibit 85: Forteo' s Key Approval Trials
• Exhibit 86: Forteo Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 87: Forteo Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 88: Clinical Trials of Arzoxifene in Osteoporosis
• Exhibit 89: Expected Launch Price to Treat per Day ($US), Arzoxifene, by Country
• Exhibit 90: Expected Arzoxifene Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 91: Expected Arzoxifene Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 92: Summary of P&G' s Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
• Exhibit 93: Physician Rankings of Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis, P&G, Past and Future by Specialty
• Exhibit 94: Physician Perceptions of P&G in Osteoporosis
• Exhibit 95: Physician Perceptions of Actonel
• Exhibit 96: Physician Perceptions of Actonel, with Net Advantage-Disadvantage Difference
• Exhibit 97: Patient' s Reasons for Discontinuing Actonel Therapy
• Exhibit 98: Actonel' s Key Fracture Efficacy Trials
• Exhibit 99: Physician Perceptions of Actonel and Boniva' s GI Tolerability
• Exhibit 100: Physician Perceptions of Actonel and Fosamax' s Formulary Status
• Exhibit 101: Actonel Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 102: Actonel Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 103: Etidronate Revenue ($US), Branded Didronel and Generics, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 104: Didronel Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 105: Physician Perceptions of Sanofi-Aventis versus P&G in Osteoporosis, Total Inclusions in Top Three
• Exhibit 106: Physician Rankings of Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis, Sanofi-Aventis, Past and Future by Specialty
• Exhibit 107: Physician Perceptions of Novartis in Osteoporosis
• Exhibit 108: Summary of Novartis' Osteoporosis Product Portfolio & Research Programs
• Exhibit 109: Physician Rankings of Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis, Novartis, Past and Future, by Specialty
• Exhibit 110: Novartis' Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Brand, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 111: Novartis' Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Brand, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 112: Physician Reasons for Not Prescribing Miacalcin
• Exhibit 113: Patient' s Reasons for Discontinuing Miacalcin Therapy
• Exhibit 114: Miacalcin and Fortical Revenue ($US), 2006-2011 [Graphical Version]
• Exhibit 115: Miacalcin and Fortical Revenue ($US), 2006-2011 [Tabular Version]
• Exhibit 116: Physician Preference of Dosing Formulation, Once-Yearly IV versus Once-Weekly Oral
• Exhibit 117: Reclast Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 118: Expected Price to Treat per Day ($US), Reclast at Launch, by Country, 2008
• Exhibit 119: Reclast Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 120: Physician Perceptions of Wyeth in Osteoporosis
• Exhibit 121: Physician Rankings of Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis, Wyeth, Past and Future, by Specialty
• Exhibit 122: Wyeth' s Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Brand, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 123: Wyeth' s Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Brand, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 124: Premarin Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 125: Premarin Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 126: Clinical Trials of Viviant in Osteoporosis
• Exhibit 127: Expected Price to Treat per Day ($US), Viviant at Launch, by Country, 2008
• Exhibit 128: Expected Viviant Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 129: Expected Viviant Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 130: Clinical Trials of Aprela in Osteoporosis and Postmenopausal Symptoms
• Exhibit 131: Expected Aprela Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 132: Expected Aprela Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011[Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 133: Expected Price to Treat per Day ($US), Aprela at Launch, by Country, 2008

Section 5: Emerging Competitors

• Exhibit 134: Physician Perceptions of Roche in Osteoporosis, 2007
• Exhibit 135: Summary of Roche Group' s Osteoporosis Research Programs
• Exhibit 136: Roche Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 137: Physician Rankings of Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis Market, Roche, Past and Future, by Specialty
• Exhibit 138: Efficacy Attributes in terms of Net Advantage-Disadvantage Difference, by Brand
• Exhibit 139: Physician Perceptions of Boniva, with Net Advantage-Disadvantage Difference
• Exhibit 140: Physician Perceptions of Boniva
• Exhibit 141: Patient' s Reasons for Discontinuing Boniva Therapy
• Exhibit 142: Physician Perceptions of Oral Bisphophonates, by Dosing Frequency
• Exhibit 143: Physician Perceptions of Oral Bisphosphonates, by Gastrointestinal Tolerability
• Exhibit 144: Physician Perceptions of Oral Bisphosphonates, by Quality of DTC Advertising
• Exhibit 145: Brands with Most Patient Requests, as a % of Total
• Exhibit 146: Physician Perceptions of Oral Bisphosphonates, by Formulary Position
• Exhibit 147: Expected Boniva Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 148: Expected Boniva Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 149: Physician Perceptions of GlaxoSmithKline in Osteoporosis, 2007
• Exhibit 150: Summary of GSK' s Osteoporosis Product Portfolio
• Exhibit 151: GlaxoSmithKline Osteoporosis Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 152: Physician Rankings of Most Influential Companies in Osteoporosis, GSK, Past and Future by Specialty
• Exhibit 153: Protelos Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 154: Protelos Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 155: Expected Denosumab Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 156: Expected Denosumab Revenue ($US), by Country, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 157: Expected Price to Treat per Day ($US), Denosumab at Launch, by Country, 2008

Section 6: Market Forecast

• Exhibit 158: Osteoporosis Market ($US), Major Markets, 2006-2011 (Graphical Format)
• Exhibit 159: Osteoporosis Market ($US), Major Markets, 2006-2011 (Tabular Format)
• Exhibit 160: Osteoporosis Market ($US), by Country, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 161: Osteoporosis Market ($US), by Drug Class, 2006-2011 [Graphical Format]
• Exhibit 162: Osteoporosis Market ($US), by Drug Class, 2006-2011 [Tabular Format]
• Exhibit 163: Osteoporosis Branded Bisphosphonate Market ($US), by Drug, 2006-2011
• Exhibit 164: Osteoporosis SERM Market ($US), by Drug, 2006-2011

相關商品

骨頭疾病治療相關市場調查報告書

全球肌肉骨骼疾病治療藥物的市場(到2017年為止)
Musculoskeletal Disorders Therapeutics Market to 2017 - Osteoarthritis Market to Decline with Patent Expiry of Celebrex in 2014
價格 : US $ 3500
出版日期 : 2012年01月

骨性關節炎治療藥物:開發平台評估與到2018年為止的市場預測
Osteoarthritis (OA) Therapeutics - Pipeline Assessment and Market Forecasts to 2018
價格 : US $ 3500
出版日期 : 2011年11月

骨質疏鬆症治療藥物的研究開發趨勢
R&D Trends: Osteoporosis - Strong pipeline bodes well for future treatment
價格 : US $ 3800
出版日期 : 2011年11月

Decision Resources, Inc.發行的製藥相關市場調查報告書

傳染病疫苗開發平台:競爭檢討

Special Report: The Infectious Disease Vaccine Pipeline--A Competitive Review

價格 : US $ 9200

出版日期 : 2011年06月

感染疾病疫苗:未滿足需求和對醫藥品產業來說的機會

Special Report: Infectious Disease Vaccines--Unmet Needs and Opportunities for Pharma

價格 : US $ 9200

出版日期 : 2011年06月

自閉症譜系障礙:高未滿足需求創造出很大的市場機會

Special Report: Autism Spectrum Disorders--High Unmet Needs Create Significant Market Opportunities

價格 : US $ 9200

出版日期 : 2011年06月

Email Alert(Email 通知) - 最新市場調查報告書

GII 將每天定期更新最新市場調查報書資訊，選擇您有興趣的市場分類，我們將用Email的方式讓您收到最新訊息!