Market reports & researches
LOG IN | Services | Contact | Custom Research



Main Consumer Goods & Retail Food and Beverage The Drug Delivery Sector: Reformulating Company Strategies for the Future
Publications

(Currently 512486 Items)


Partners


Food and Beverage / REPORT INFORMATION

The Drug Delivery Sector: Reformulating Company Strategies for the Future

DateOct, 2003
Pages379
Price / format€16264 / Electronic

€10 000 

Report Information | Custom-Tailored Research | Product Trade Lead


Abstract:
 The dynamics of the drug delivery market are changing, with pharmaceutical companies bringing drug delivery capabilities in-house. This is driving an evolution in the strategies of the leading players. Datamonitor's analysis provides you with the insight needed to align both your technological and partnership strategy with that of the players most likely to succeed in this changing environment.

Scope of this Report:

- Compares leading drug delivery players by 2001 revenues, R&D spend, operating profits and portfolio value
- Examines existing and developmental drug delivery technologies
- Presents the drivers and resistors of the use of drug delivery technologies, and the factors impacting the future role of drug delivery companies
- Identifies drug delivery company product development and licensing strategies
- Profiles nine drug delivery companies: Alkermes, Aradigm, Enzon, Nektar, Noven, PowderJect, Sepracor, SkyePharma and Weston Medical
- Provides a proprietary value rating of the marketed and pipeline products of the profiled drug delivery players

For each product, the evaluation includes a multi-factorial assessment of three critical factors:

- the product's development risk
- the product's investment return potential
- the structure of any product development or licensing deal

“. The most successful drug delivery companies will be those that respond to market evolution by becoming more independent, in terms of both product development and marketing. ”

Report Highlights

Pharmaceutical companies are taking drug delivery technology in-house, particularly the development of oral controlled and sustained release reformulations. This will drive the classic drug delivery company to evolve its business model in order to retain a competitive edge.

In a bid for increased profitability, some players will transition to an integrated pharma model, the value of which is highlighted by Sepracor, whose products were rated by Datamonitor as being the most valuable of the companies profiled.

Companies that do not set up independently will capitalize on the increasing commercialization of biotechnology products, or focus on those niche drug delivery technologies that pharma clients are expected to continue to outsource.

Reasons to Buy this Report

1. Benchmark your strategy against key rivals in the drug delivery sector
2. Assess the impact of the changing role of big pharma in the drug delivery sector on your business
3. Identify growth areas in the drug delivery market
4. Understand the technological capabilities of drug delivery companies, and identify possible development partners

“. The biotechnology sector represents an emerging opportunity for drug delivery players. ”








Table of contents:
 CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

Our opinion on the current and future drug delivery market 3

The dynamics of the drug delivery market are changing. Pharmaceutical companies are increasingly bringing drug delivery capabilities in-house, and reformulation technologies are being employed at earlier stages of the product lifecycle. Our analysis suggests that the most successful drug delivery companies will be those that respond to this market evolution by becoming more independent, in terms of both product development and marketing 4

The increasing commercialization of biotechnology and gene based products, which are by their nature difficult to administer non-invasively, represents an emerging opportunity for drug delivery companies. Those companies that wish to retain the traditional R&D service based business model are advised to develop and/or acquire macromolecule focused reformulation platforms 6

The potential value of transitioning to an integrated pharma model is highlighted by Sepracor, whose products were rated as being the most valuable of the companies profiled. In contrast, pure service providers received a much lower rating. SkyePharma, for example, received a low average value rating per product, although its overall portfolio was rated highly due to the volume of products and technologies 8

CHAPTER 2 SEGMENTING THE DRUG DELIVERY MARKET 13

Key findings 13
Market segmentation by company 14
Market segmentation by technology 26
Oral drug delivery 28
Injectable drug delivery 37
Inhalable drug delivery 43
Transdermal drug delivery 47
Single isomer technology 52
Nasal drug delivery 53
Other drug delivery technologies 57
Market segmentation by therapy area 59

CHAPTER 3 DRUG DELIVERY MARKET AND COMPANY DYNAMICS 62

Key findings 62
Evolution of the drug delivery market, 2002-2007 63
Drivers and resistors to the use of reformulation 63
Factors impacting the role of drug delivery companies 66
Strategies for drug delivery company success 68

CHAPTER 4 ALKERMES 79

Key Findings 79
Current positioning: revenue breakdown in 2001 80
Strategic outlook 81

Company Strategy 82

Introduction to Alkermes 82
Assessment of strategic position 82
Alliance network 85

Portfolio and pipeline analysis 87

Technology focus 87
Injectable sustained release technology 90
Inhalable technology 96
Intra-cerebral technology 99

Corporate Development 101

Profitability, 1997-2001 101
Liquidity, 1997-2001 103
2001 Performance benchmarking 105
Key events shaping corporate activity, 1997-2001 106

CHAPTER 5 ARADIGM 109

Key Findings 109
Current positioning: revenue breakdown in 2001 110
Strategic outlook 111

Company Strategy 112

Introduction to Aradigm 112
Assessment of strategic position 112
Alliance network 116

Portfolio and pipeline analysis 118

Technology focus 118
Inhalable technology 121
Profitability, 1997-2001 138
Liquidity, 1997-2001 141
2001 Performance benchmarking 143
Key events shaping the corporate activity 1997-2001 144

CHAPTER 6 ENZON 147

Key findings 147

Current positioning: revenue breakdown in FY2001 148
Ethical revenue performance: FY2002–FY07 149
Strategic outlook 150

Company strategy 151

Introduction to Enzon 151
Assessment of strategic position 151
Alliance network 153

Portfolio and pipeline analysis 154

Corporate revenue stream, FY1999—FY2001 154
Ethical revenue stream, FY2000–FY01 155
Ethical revenue stream, FY2002–FY07 156
Technology focus 159
Enzon’s product portfolio 163
PEGylation technology 164
Other injectable products portfolio 167
Single-chain antibody technology 169
Profitability, FY1997-FY2002 170
Liquidity, FY1997-FY2001 172
2001 Performance benchmarking 173

CHAPTER 7 NEKTAR 174

Key findings 174
Current positioning: revenue breakdown in 2001 175
Strategic outlook 176

Company Strategy 177

Introduction to Nektar 177
Assessment of strategic position 177
Alliance network 179

Portfolio and pipeline analysis 180

Technology focus 180

Nektar’s product portfolio 183

PEGylation technologies 183
Inhalable particle engineering 192
Profitability, 1997-2001 198
Liquidity, 1997-2001 200
2001 Performance benchmarking 201

CHAPTER 8 NOVEN 203

Key Findings 203
Current positioning: revenue breakdown in 2001 204
Strategic outlook 205

Company Strategy 206

Introduction to Noven 206
Assessment of strategic position 206
Alliance network 210

Portfolio and pipeline analysis 213

Technology focus 213
Transdermal technology 216
Transmucosal technology 225
Profitability, 1997-2001 228
Liquidity, 1997-2001 232
2001 Performance benchmarking 233
Key-events shaping the corporate activity 1997-2001 234

CHAPTER 9 POWDERJECT 237

Key Findings 237
Current positioning: revenue breakdown in 2001 238
Strategic outlook 239

Company Strategy 240

Introduction to PowderJect 240
Assessment of strategic position 240

Portfolio and pipeline analysis 243

Therapy area focus in 2001 243
Forecast revenue stream, 2002-07 244
Therapy area forecasts to 2007 244
Marketed Franchise 245
Profitability, 1997-2001 252
Liquidity, 1997-2001 254
2001 Performance benchmarking 256
Key events shaping corporate activity 1997–2001 257

CHAPTER 10 SEPRACOR 260

Key findings 260
Current positioning: revenue breakdown in 2001 261
Strategic outlook 262

Company strategy 263

Introduction to Sepracor 263
Assessment of strategic position 264
Alliance network 269

Portfolio and pipeline analysis 272

Technology focus 272
Single isomer technology 275
Profitability, 1997-2001 294
Liquidity, 1997-2001 296
2001 Performance benchmarking 299
Key events shaping corporate activity 1997–2001 300

CHAPTER 11 SKYEPHARMA 305

Key findings 305
Current positioning: revenue breakdown in 2001 306
Strategic outlook 307

Company strategy 308

Introduction to SkyePharma 308
Assessment of strategic position 308
Alliance network 310

Portfolio and pipeline analysis 311

Technology focus 311
SkyePharma’s product portfolio 315
Oral technology 315
Inhalation technology 318
Injectable technology 322

List of Tables

Table 1: Proprietary value rating of 8 drug delivery companies 8
Table 2: Revenues of 15 drug delivery companies, 2000-01 14
Table 3: R&D spend of 13 drug delivery companies, 2000-01 17
Table 4: Operating profit of 15 drug delivery companies, 2000-01 19
Table 5: Proprietary value rating of 8 drug delivery companies 24
Table 6: Technological focus of 8 drug delivery companies profiled 26
Table 7: Nastech’s product pipeline 55
Table 8: Therapeutic focus of 8 drug delivery companies profiled 59
Table 9: Number of marketed and pipeline drug delivery products by deal type 71
Table 10: Alkermes’s alliance network, 2001 85
Table 11: Technological breakdown of Alkermes’s portfolio, 2002 87
Table 12: Alkermes's injectable sustained release technology portfolio, 2001 91
Table 13: Sales of currently marketed hGH products, 2000-01 93
Table 14: Alkermes's inhalable technology portfolio, 2001 97
Table 15: Alkermes's intra-cerebral technology portfolio, 2001 100
Table 16: Summary of Alkermes’s historical M&A activity, 1997-2000 106
Table 17: Summary of Alkermes historical agreements, 1997-2000 106
Table 18: Aradigm’s alliance network, 2002 116
Table 19: Technological breakdown of Aradigm’s portfolio, 2002 118
Table 20: Inhalable technology portfolio, 2001 127
Table 21: Aradigm’s revenues and operating expenditure, 2000-01 139
Table 22: Aradigm’s corporate alliances, 1997-2000 144
Table 23: Enzon’s ethical revenue stream, FY2002–FY07 149
Table 24: Enzon’s alliance network, 2002 153
Table 25: Enzon’s corporate revenue by business area, FY1999–FY2001 154
Table 26: Enzon’s ethical revenues, 1999–2001 155
Table 27: Forecast for Enzon’s ethical revenue stream, FY2002–FY07 156
Table 28: Comparison between our and analyst consensus forecasts for Enzon’s currently marketed products, FY2002–FY03 158
Table 29: Technological breakdown of Enzon’s portfolio, 2002 161
Table 30: Enzon’s product portfolio, 2002 163
Table 31: PEGylation technology portfolio, 2002 164
Table 32: Other injectable products in Enzon’s portfolio, 2002 167
Table 33: SCA technology portfolio, 2002 169
Table 34: Enzon’s profitability performance, FY1999–FY2001 170
Table 35: Nektar’s alliance network, 2002 179
Table 36: Technological breakdown of Nektar’s portfolio, 2002 181
Table 37: PEGylation technology portfolio, 2002 184
Table 38: Inhalable engineering and supercritical technologies portfolio, 2002 193
Table 39: Nektar’s profitability performance, 1999–2001 198
Table 40: Noven’s alliance network, 2002 210
Table 41: Technological breakdown of Noven’s portfolio, 2002 213
Table 42: Noven’s transdermal portfolio and pipeline, 2001 219
Table 43: Noven’s transmucosal portfolio, 2001 226
Table 44: Noven’s revenue structure, 2000-01 229
Table 45: Noven’s operating costs, 2000-01 230
Table 46: Summary of Noven’s historical agreements, 1997 - 2000 234
Table 47: Breakdown of PowderJect’s sales in 2000 and 2001 243
Table 48: Forecast sales for PowderJect’s marketed products, 2002, 2004 and 2007 244
Table 49: PowderJect’s marketed products, 2001 245
Table 50: PowderJect’s R&D pipeline, 2002 251
Table 51: Forecast sales for PowderJect’s marketed portfolio, 2002–07 252
Table 52: Summary of PowderJect’s historical M&A activity, 1997–2000 257
Table 53: Summary of PowderJect’s historical agreements, 1997–02 258
Table 54: Sepracor’s portfolio, 2002 272
Table 55: Single isomer technology portfolio, 2001 276
Table 56: Summary of Sepracor’ historical agreements, 1997–2000 301
Table 57: SkyePharma’s alliance network, 2002 310
Table 58: Breakdown of SkyePharma’s portfolio by technology, 2002 313
Table 59: Oral technology portfolio, 2002 315
Table 60: Inhalation technology portfolio, 2002 318
Table 61: Injectable technology portfolio, 2002 322
Table 62: Topical technology portfolio, 2002 326
Table 63: Solubilization technology portfolio, 2002 327
Table 64: SkyePharma’s profitability performance, 1999-2001 328
Table 65: SkyePharma’s funding and liquid assets,1999–2001 330
Table 66: Breakdown of Weston Medical’s portfolio, 2002 342
Table 67: Weston Medical's Intraject technology portfolio, 2001 2002? 348
Table 68: Summary of Weston Medical’s historical agreements, 1998-2000 359

List of Figures

Figure 1: Strategic focus of key drug delivery companies 5
Figure 2: Breakdown of marketed and pipeline products by partner type 7
Figure 3: Revenues of 15 drug delivery companies in 2001 15
Figure 4: 2001 R&D expenditure of 13 drug delivery companies 18
Figure 5: Operating profits of 15 drug delivery companies, 2001 20
Figure 6: Comparison of operating profit growth, revenue growth and R&D spend of 13 drug delivery companies, 2001 21
Figure 7: Comparison of overall portfolio value rating and average rating per product of 8 drug delivery companies 25
Figure 8: Breakdown of product portfolios by delivery technology, 2001 27
Figure 9: Illustration of NOBEX’s drug-polymer conjugate oral drug delivery system 36
Figure 10: Breakdown by therapy area of the product portfolios of 8 drug delivery companies, 2001 60
Figure 11: Strategic focus of key drug delivery companies 69
Figure 12: Breakdown of marketed and pipeline products by partner type 72
Figure 13: Ratio of marketed to pipeline products, 2001 73
Figure 14: Alkermes’s performance, 2000-01 80
Figure 15: Assessment of Alkermes’s strategic position, 2002 81
Figure 16: Evolution of Alkermes’s technological strategy, 2002 88
Figure 17: Assessment of Alkermes’s portfolio strength by technology, 2002 89
Figure 18: Alkermes’s profitability stream, 1997–2001 101
Figure 19: Alkermes’s funding and liquid assets,1997–2001 103
Figure 20: Liquidity and business momentum ratios, 2001 105
Figure 21: Aradigm’s financial performance, 2001 110
Figure 22: Assessment of Aradigm’s strategic position, 2002 111
Figure 23: Assessment of Aradigm’s portfolio strength by product, 2002 119
Figure 24: Aradigm’s profitability stream, 1997-2001 138
Figure 25: Aradigm’s funding and liquid assets, 1997-2001 141
Figure 26: Liquidity and profitability ratios, 2001 143
Figure 27: Enzon’s financial performance, FY1999–FY2001 148
Figure 28: Enzon’s ethical revenue stream, FY2002–FY07 149
Figure 29: Assessment of Enzon’s strategic position, 2002 150
Figure 30: Enzon’s corporate revenues by business area, 1999–2001 154
Figure 31: Enzon’s ethical revenue by product, FY2001 155
Figure 32: Enzon’s ethical revenue stream forecasts, FY2002–FY07 157
Figure 33: Enzon’s core technological platforms, 2002 159
Figure 34: Evolution of Enzon’s technological strategy 161
Figure 35: Assessment of Enzon’s portfolio strength by technology, 2007 162
Figure 36: Enzon’s profitability performance, FY1997–FY2001 170
Figure 37: Enzon’s funding and liquid assets,FY1997–FY2001 172
Figure 38: Liquidity and profitability ratios, 2001 173
Figure 39: Nektar’s financial performance, 1999–2001 175
Figure 40: Assessment of Nektar’s strategic position, 2002 176
Figure 41: Nektar’s technology focus, 2002 180
Figure 42: Evolution of Nektar’s technological strategy 181
Figure 43: Assessment of Nektar’s portfolio strength by technology, 2007 182
Figure 44: Nektar’s profitability performance, 1997–2001 198
Figure 45: Nektar’s funding and liquid assets,1997–2001 200
Figure 46: Liquidity and profitability ratios, 2001 201
Figure 47: Noven’s financial performance, 2001 204
Figure 48: Assessment of Noven’s strategic position , 2002 205
Figure 49: Evolution of Noven’s technological strategy 214
Figure 50: Assessment of Noven’s portfolio strength by technology 215
Figure 51: Noven’s profitability stream, 1997-2001 228
Figure 52: Noven’s funding and liquid assets, 1997 - 2001 232
Figure 53: Liquidity and debt ratios, 2001 233
Figure 54: PowderJect’s performance, 2000–01 238
Figure 55: Assessment of PowderJect’s strategic position, 2002 239
Figure 56: PowderJect’s profitability stream, 1997–2001 253
Figure 57: PowderJect’s funding and liquid assets,1997–2001 255
Figure 58: Liquidity and business momentum ratios, 2001 256
Figure 59: Sepracor’s financial performance, 2000–01 261
Figure 60: Assessment of Sepracor’s strategic position, 2002 262
Figure 61: Assessment of Sepracor’s portfolio strength 273
Figure 62: Sepracor’s profitability stream, 1997–2001 294
Figure 63: Sepracor’s funding and liquid assets, 1997–2001 297
Figure 64: Liquidity and profitability ratios, 2001 299
Figure 65: SkyePharma’s financial performance, 1999–2001 306
Figure 66: Assessment of SkyePharma’s strategic position, 2002 307
Figure 67: SkyePharma’s organizational structure, 2002 308
Figure 68: SkyePharma’s core technological platforms, 2002 311
Figure 69: Evolution of SkyePharma’s technological strategy 313
Figure 70: Assessment of SkyePharma’s portfolio strength by technology, 2007 314
Figure 71: SkyePharma’s profitability performance, 1997-2001 328
Figure 72: SkyePharma’s funding and liquid assets,1997–2001 330
Figure 73: Liquidity and profitability ratios, 2001 331
Figure 74: Weston Medical’s financial performance, 2000–01 333
Figure 75: Assessment of Weston Medical’s strategic position, 2002 334
Figure 76: Assessment of Weston Medical’s portfolio strength, 2002 343
Figure 77: Weston Medical’s profitability stream, 1999-2001 354
Figure 78: Weston Medical’s funding and liquid assets, 1999 - 2001 357
Figure 79: Liquidity and business momentum ratios, 2001 358




Order this report

  Company name:
  Contact person:
  Phone/fax:
  Email:
  Comments:
   


Product Trade Lead
0 leads found


Add New Buy/Sell Lead

© 2007-2010 MarketReportFinder.com