The World’s Biggest-Selling Drug In 2016 Will Be…
5 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // May 3rd, 2010 // 7:47 am
Another month, another list. Once again, there is speculation about which medications will generate the most revenue over the next few years. Interestingly, the latest conclusion mirrors another recent list that suggests conventional pills will easily be eclipsed. Only two small molecules make this newest ranking, which was compiled by EvaluatePharma. Not surprisingly, one of them is AstraZeneca’s Crestor cholesterol fighter, although the newest list differs slightly from this list. And so once again, there are myriad implications raised, including the strategic direction pursued by the biggest drugmakers and the costs for patients. The percentage figure refers to sales growth from 2009 to 2016…
1. Humira (arthritis) Abbott Labs/Eisai - $10.1b; 9 percent
2. Avastin (cancer) Roche - $8.9b; 6 percent
3. Enbrel (arthritis) Amgen/Pfizer/Takeda - $7.3b; 2 percent
4. Rituxan (cancer) Roche/Biogen - $6.8b; 3 percent
5. Crestor (cholesterol) AstraZeneca - $6.3b; 4 percent
6. Herceptin (cancer) Roche - $6.2b; 3 percent
7. Remicade (arthritis) J&J/Merck - $5.7b; 0 percent
8. Lantus (diabetes) Sanofi-Aventis - $5.3b; 3 percent
9. Advair (asthma) GlaxoSmithKline - $5.2b; -6 percent
10. Prolia (osteoporosis) Amgen/Daiichi - $5.2b -
Separately, EvaluatePharma also ranked drugmakers. The ranking below depicts annual sales, followed by the change in annual sales and the change in market share from 2009 to 2016. The listing reflects market rank in 2016. The most notable difference is that Teva Pharmaceuticals will have cracked the Top 10 by then, overtaking Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Amgen…
1. Pfizer - $47.1b -2 percent; 6 percent
2. Merck - $46.3b +2 percent; 5.9 percent
3. Novartis - $46b +3 percent; 5.9 percent
4. Roche - $43.9b +3 percent; 5.6 percent
5. Sanofi-Aventis - $38.9b; 0 percent; 5 percent
6. GlaxoSmithKline - $38.7b; +1 percent; 4.9 percent
7. Abbott Labs - $26.1b; +7 percent; 3.3 percent
8. Johnson & Johnson - $24.8b; +2 percent; 3.2 percent
9. AstraZeneca - $22.1b; -5 percent; 2.8 percent
10. Teva - $20.8b; +7 percent; 2.7 percent
patrons99
Interesting that a statin and a LABA made the list:
Dr Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at MIT, has written a most interesting series of Essays on Health, which focus on the statins.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/
patrons99
Here’s another link to one of Dr Seneff’s articles on statins on April 26, 2010, from the healthjournalclub.blogspot.com:
http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/2010/04/statins-pregnancy-sepsis-cancer-heart.html
Dr Duane Graveline’s website has many links to articles on statins. He wrote a book titled “Lipitor Thief of Memory”.
http://www.spacedoc.net/
Suzanne
Rituxan is also used to treat RA, so four of the top ten could be considered arthritis meds.
I see there is a newer Humira peds study with some results posted:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT00048542?term=humira&rank=79%A7=X6015#outcome1
I wonder how they double-blind an injection that can burn so much that even adults report it is hard for them to tolerate?
I’m also having trouble understanding the results. “Number of Subjects in the Non-MTX Stratum With Disease Flare During the Double-blind Phase” - they define ‘flare’ as “1) >= 30% worsening in at least 3 of the 6 Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis (JRA) core set criteria and a minimum of 2 active joints, and 2) >= 30% improvement in not more than 1 of the 6 JRA core set criteria. ”
Doesn’t it seem like that means you could get 25% worse and it would still be reported like a successful therapy?
Nathan
It is mind-blowing to watch how quickly the shift from small-molecule therapies is going towards biologics. The entire pharma industry is essentially “re-inventing” itself, particuarly within the R&D depts. The shift is due, at least in part, to the ruthless competition from generics. Even once bio-generics come onboard, the barrier to entry is going to be so high that prices are unlikely to crash nearly as much after patent expiry.
patrons99
Nathan - I agree that the pace of the shift towards biologics is mind-blowing. Personally, I believe that this trend is actually DANGEROUS, because it is largely unregulated, if not just poorly-regulated.
Most small molecule therapies depended on absorption from the gut, i.e. they are intended for oral administration. Most biologics, on the other hand are designed from the get-go as parenterals. This route of administration goes directly into the bloodstream, bypassing much of our natural immune system protection. So why is that risky? Increased risk of autoimmune stimulation, direct introduction of uncertain biologic recombinants and degradation products, and inadvertent harm to the genome via transfection of foreign DNA and non-human proteins. Many biologicals today have contaminants whose presence cannot even be tested for, because the technology does not yet exist.