Create Robust Counter-Generics Strategies to Maximize Market Share As Patents Expire
Fresh off of 2012’s patent cliff, the life sciences industry is bracing for a second cliff in 2015 — with sales losses that may total some $33.5 billion. For any company looking toward the later stages of brand life, now is the time to plan a counter-generics strategy.
To prolong brand sales and mitigate revenue erosion, key initiatives — including exclusivity extensions, line extensions and competitive tactics — require ample time to yield lucrative results.
This report examines counter-generics and biosimilar strategies for Top 10, Top 50 and small pharmas. Data show counter-generics strategy, team structures and staffing, and 39 new case studies explore companies’ experiences deploying 13 different counter-generics tactics. At the deepest level of detail, profiles depict 10 counter-generics team structures, strategy mixes and planning timelines.
Plan for and implement a diverse and robust set of strategies
Compare your team’s action plan against the ideal timeline for counter-generics strategy development to learn when to use the right tactic at the right time. Then combine strategies to maximize a brand’s revenue potential.
Build a strong counter-generics task force
Determine whether generics defense efforts require a dedicated structure or an ad hoc team, and position key functions — including product and brand management and business development — to drive strategy planning.
Prepare for coming biosimilar competition and changing approval pathways
The biologics landscape is changing as more biosimilar products seek approval. Compare biosimilar pathways in the US and EU markets, and ready counter-biosimilar tactics to supplement the inherent barriers to developing and manufacturing biosimilar products.
The following excerpt is a key finding from the full report’s Executive Summary.
Biologic Companies Use Counter-Promotion Tactics To Combat Biosimilars
The popularity of specific counter-generics and counter-biosimilar tactics differs across biologic and small-molecule companies. Figure E.8 [shown in full report] shows the prevalence of examined tactics among these two types of drug companies. Counter-promotion is the most popular counter-biosimilar tactic used by surveyed biologic lifecycle management teams. More than half (56%) of surveyed biologic teams currently use this tactic. Among those teams, 80% report increasing advertising near and after patent expiration. A large difference in biologic and small-molecule tactic lies in the authorized generic deals. No surveyed biologic teams currently use this tactic, while a fifth of small-molecule teams do. This tactic is not likely to become popular for biologic teams — finding a company with the technology and infrastructure needed to create biosimilars will remain difficult in the near future.
Counter-promotion is particularly suited to biologic drugs facing biosimilar competition. Executives discussed the dangers of switching to a drug that may not be structurally identical, as is the case with small-molecule generics. The size and complexity of biologics make biosimilar introduction inherently more difficult. For payers’ and physicians’ benefit, biologic lifecycle management teams should highlight the risk of switching to a drug that is not generic, only similar.