Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MLNM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Miljenko Zuanic who wrote (1671)	7/1/2003 12:22:46 AM
From: David Howe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3044

<< Today US economic is ~40-50% of worldwide >> % of the world economy and % of a potential drug market are dramatically different metrics. GS got it right, IMO. Dave

To: Miljenko Zuanic who wrote (1671)	7/1/2003 2:13:09 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3044

J&J oncology expertise Well they do have some oncology products - Doxil (liposomal doxorubicin) and something for hairy cell leukemia (name escapes me at present). But you are correct that they don't have much oncology development experience. For a non-US deal this is about as best as could be expected. Developing a product like this is expensive - you need lots of trials in different indications with different combinations, so the share of development costs is significant. Today US economic is ~40-50% of worldwide, but it may (and will) change dramatically in coming years. Global market has significant potential, imo. That remains to be seen. There is an awful lot of temptation for many countries to just "steal" new drugs by allowing generics/knock-offs quickly, patents notwithstanding. Pharma (stupidly) initially tried to hold the line with HIV drugs - they have now retreated in disarray. Whether the HIV precedent will be followed by other areas still remains to be seen. Canada is an interesting case. They toe the line on IP, but their strict price controls mean that they essentially get to partially free-ride on US drug development. I wouldn't be surprised to see some companies deciding to not seek approval for new drugs in Canada at all so as to avoid the re-importation problem. Peter

To: Miljenko Zuanic who wrote (1671)	7/3/2003 6:30:32 AM
From: Icebrg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3044

<< MLNM retained all commercial rights for Velcade in the US (which represents 60-70% of the global potential).>> This is very wrong. Today US economic is ~40-50% of worldwide, but it may (and will) change dramatically in coming years. Global market has significant potential, imo. That is something I have often wondered about. What are the relations between the US, European and Japanese pharmaceutical markets size-wise? It seems to be something like this. North America (USA and Canada): 50,9 % Europe: 25,4 % Japan: 11,7 % Africa, Asia (excl.Japan) and Australia: 7,9 % Latin America: 4,1 % Source: EFPIA - European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. efpia.org Some other interesting statistics from the same publication. Total spending on healthcare as a percentage of GDP at market prices for year 2000. USA: 13 % Europe: 8,1 % Japan: 7,8 % The highest European figure is Switzerland's at 10,7 % and the lowest is Turkey with 4,8 %. Most of the other are found somewhere between 7,5 % and 8,5 %. Considering the budgetary pressures most European countries are facing, I cannot see much room for further expansion of the figure for total health-related costs. Re-distributions between different types of costs are a possibility. Erik