throbber
2I9lZ)16
`
`Eiqis — FiercePhamdVla'keting
`
`FiercePharmaMarketing
`
`v
`
`<SeIectanothersite I Advemse I
`
`SIGN ME UP
`
`EMAIL ADDRESS
`
`Fierce
`PharmaMar'kel:ing
`
`Eliquis
`The top 10 most-advertised prescription drug brands
`
`SHARE
`
`Email
`
`EEEEH
`
`TOOLS
`
`bComment
`
`ll-Print
`
`Total: $219 million
`
`As the last to the market in the new generation of blood thinners,
`Bristol-Myers Squibb ($BMY) and Pfizer ($PFE) overcompensated
`with ad spending on their joint—venture dug in 2014. Eliquis‘ paid
`media spending topped $219 million, an increase of 89% year over
`year
`
`
`
`Last year, Eiquis was also approved as a treatment for deep vein
`thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, a smaller but important
`market sector, which may have spurred ad spending at the end of the year. The
`tight three—way competition likely was another factor in increased spending, as all
`three sought to stand out from the me—too crowd. Some speculated that Eliquis
`increased spending to take advantage of litigation woes for Bayer and Johnson &
`Johnson's ($JNJ) Xarelto and Boehringer IngeIheim's Pradaxa, with lawsuits
`involving bleeding complications mounting against the two. The increase in paid
`media comes on top of BMS and Pfizer's doling out of $8 million in doctor fees last
`year for Eliquis, the second-highest for any single dnig, while the joint venture also
`expanded its sales force for the dmg.
`
`Like most of the top-spending prescription drugs, the bulk of Eliquis advertising
`was spent on TV. Eliquis TV commercials bashed on previous generation drug
`warfarin, instead of taking on the current cornpetition—market leader Xarelto and
`Pradaxa, Actors in the Eliquis TV ads outline direct comparisons to warfarin,
`explaining point by point how Eliquis is better.
`
`Still, results have been disappointing for BMS and Pfizer, which expected a
`blockbuster in Eliquis, but have yet to break the $1 billion barrier. Sales for 2014
`were $774 million.
`
`For more:
`
`BMS, Pfizer pull out all the stops to give Eliquis sales a 02 jolt
`BMS, Pfizer's Eliquis gets a NICE boost in rivalry with Pradaxa, Xarelto
`Should Eliquis’ surge make Xarelto fans very, very afraid? Not really, analyst says
`
`
`Special Report: The top 10 most-advertised prescription drug brands
`
`|[ Cialis
`
`ll Lyrica
`
`Latuda
`
`Xeljanz
`
`litpJlwww.fiercephar'manakdir1g.corn/specid-repoi’ts/top-10-most-advertised-prescri nion—¢ug-braxis-eliqis
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`iL;;;;;;;;;s@"
`
`JOIN 24,000+ INSIDERS
`SIGN UP FOR OUR
`NEWSLETTER
`Fien:ePharmaMarkefing is the leading source of
`phanna marketing news with a special focus on
`consumer advertisiig, DTC trends, new (tug
`launches, and more. Join your fellow phanna
`marketing executives who get
`FiercePharmaMarketing via email. Sign up today!
`
`EMAIL ADDRESS
`
`SIGN ME Ui‘
`
`'I‘racking Trends in
`Consumer Health Dose
`Formulation
`
`i
`
`.
`
`'\ O ‘
`
`DOWNLOAD TODAY!
`
`POPULAR STORIES
`
`MOST SHARED
`
`THE LIBRARY: WEBINAR
`
`Rare Disease 20/20: A Look at the Challenges
`and Opportunities in Rare Disease Clinical
`MD
`
`| TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23 | 2PM ET I
`
`11AM PT | PRESENTED BY: BBK
`j WORLDW DE
`
`Join the National Organization for Rue
`Disorders (NORD), Xenon Pharmaceuticals
`and BBK Worldwide as they take a closer
`look at the chdlenges and opportunities in rare
`disease clinicd R&D. Regstration is free —
`click here.
`
`MORE ITEMS
`
`SENJU EXHIBIT 2302 1,2
`LUPIN V. SENJU
`
`IPR2015—01105

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket