請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/5500完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 盧信昌(Hsin Chang Lu) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Jesse Yamaguchi | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 山口傑西 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-15T18:00:49Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2014-08-14 | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-05-15T18:00:49Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2014-08-14 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2014-07-28 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1. Ricardo Ibarra-Cabrera et. al., “Review on the worldwide regulatory framework for biosimilars focusing on the Mexican case as an emerging market in Latin America.” Biotechnology Advances. Volume 31, 2013. 1333-1343.
2. Mirhelen Mendes de Abreu et. al., “Putting the value into biosimilar decision making. The judgement value criteria.” Autoimmunity Reviews. 2014. In press: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autrev.2014.01.051> 3. Knezevic, Ivana and Elwyn Griffiths, “Biosimilars – Global issues, national solutions.” Biologicals. Volume 30, 2011. 252-255. 4. Joshua Cohen, Ashley Malins, and Zainab Shahpurwala, “Compared to US Practice, Evidence-Based Reviews in Europe Appear to Lead to Lower Prices for Some Drugs.” Health Affairs. Volume 32(4), 2013. 762-770. 5. John C. O’Donnell et. al., “Health Technology Assessment: Lessons Learned from Around the World – An Overview.” Value in Health. Volume 12, Supplement 2, 2009. S1-S5. 6. Lianne Barnieh et. al., “A Synthesis of Drug Reimbursement Decision-Making Processes in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Countries.” Value in Health. Volume 17, 2014. 98-108. 7. Joan Rovira et. al., “The Impact of Biosimilars’ Entry in the EU Market.” EMINET. January 2011. 8. Declerck, Paul J. and Steven Simoens, “A European perspective on the market accessibility of biosimilars.” Biosimilars. Volume 2, 2012. 33-40. 9. IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics. The Global Use of Medicines: Outlook through 2017. November 2013. 10. Consumer Reports. “Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis: Are Biologic Drugs Right for You?” March 19, 2014. <http://www.consumerreports.org/health/resources/pdf/best-buy-drugs/BBD_Rheumatoid_Arthritis_Summary.pdf> 11. Calo-Fernandez, Bruno and Juan Leonardo Martinez-Hurtado, “Biosimilars: Company Strategies to Capture Value from the Biologics Market.” Pharmaceuticals. Volume 5, 2012. 1393 - 1408. 12. Radar, Ronald A., “(Re)defining biopharmaceutical.” Nature Biotechnology. Volume 26, July 2008. 743 - 751. 13. US Food and Drug Administration. “What is a biological product?” February 25, 2014. <http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm194516.htm> 14. Amgen Inc. “2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K.” 2014. May 9, 2014. <http://investors.amgen.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=61656&p=irol-reportsannual> 15. Biogen Idec Inc. “Form 10-K.” 2014. May 9, 2014. <http://www.biogenidec.com/financial_reports.aspx?ID=5915> 16. US Food and Drug Administration. Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. GPO, February 2012. 17. Dean C.H. Wilkie, Lester W. Johnson, and Lesley White, “Strategies used to defend pharmaceutical brands from generics.” European Journal of Marketing. Volume 46(9), 2012. 1195-1214. 18. Frank T. Rothaermel, “Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent’s advantage: an empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry.” Research Policy. Volume 30, 2001. 1235-1251. 19. Michael E. Porter, “How competitive forces shape strategy.” Harvard Business Review. March-April 1979. 20. Fisher Ellison, Sara and Christopher M. Snyder, “Countervailing power in wholesale pharmaceuticals.” The Journal of Industrial Economics. Volume 58(1), March 2010. 32-53. 21. Ramaprasad, Arkalgud and Wayne G. Stone, “Temporal Dimension of Strategy.” Time & Society. Volume 1(3), September 1992. 359-377. 22. US Food and Drug Administration. “What does FDA do?” February 10, 2014. <http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/transparency/basics/ucm194877.htm> 23. US Food and Drug Administration. “What is the approval process for a new prescription drug?” February 10, 2014. <http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm194949.htm> 24. US Food and Drug Administration. An Evaluation of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) Workload Adjuster Fiscal Years 2009 - 2013. GPO, 22 April 2013. 25. European Medicines Agency. “What we do.” February 10, 2014. <http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/about_us/general/general_content_000091.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580028a42> 26. European Medicines Agency. “Central authorisation of medicines.” February 10, 2014. <http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/about_us/general/general_content_000109.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580028a47> 27. Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, Japan. “Who we are.” February 10, 2014. <http://www.pmda.go.jp/english/about/who.html> 28. Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, Japan. Profile of Services 2013-2014. GPO, August 2013. 29. US Food and Drug Administration. “Postmarket Drug Safety Information for Patients and Providers.” February 10, 2014. <http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/default.htm> 30. European Medicines Agency. “Pharmacovigilance.” February 10, 2014. <http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000258.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac05800241de> 31. Morton, F.S. and M. Kyle. “Markets for Pharmaceutical Products.” In: Pauly, M.V. et.al. eds. Handbook of Health Economics. Vol 2. Elsevier, 2011: 763-823 . 32. US Food and Drug Administration. “Greater Access to Generic Drugs.” February 10, 2014. <http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143545.htm#require> 33. European Medicines Agency. “Generic medicines.” February 10, 2014. <http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/special_topics/document_listing/document_listing_000335.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580514d5c> 34. Amgen. “Biologics and Biosimilars.” February 11, 2014. <http://www.amgen.com/science/amgen_biosimilars> 35. EuropaBio. “Guide to Biological Medicines. A Focus on Biosimilar Medicines.” February 11, 2014. < http://www.europabio.org/guide-biological-medicines-focus-biosimilar-medicines> 36. US Food and Drug Administration. Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. GPO, February 2012. 37. US Food and Drug Administration. “Biosimilar Biological Products.” Biosimilar Guidance Webinar, 15 February 2012. February 11, 2014. <http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/ApprovalApplications/TherapeuticBiologicApplications/Biosimilars/UCM292463.pdf?source=govdelivery> 38. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products. GPO, 30 October 2005. 39. European Medicines Agency. “Q&A 31-43: Similar biological product applications.” February 12, 2014. <http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000408.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058002958c#> 40. European Medicines Agency. “Multidisciplinary: Biosimilar.” February 12, 2014. <http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000408.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058002958c#> 41. European Medicines Agency. “Q&A 1-10: Similar biological product applications.” February 12, 2014. <http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/q_and_a/q_and_a_detail_000126.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580533e0d> 42. Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, Japan. “Recent Regulations of Biosimilars in Japan.” DIA 2011, 2 May 2011. February 13, 2014. <http://www.nihs.go.jp/mhlw/yakuji/yakuji-e_20110502-02.pdf> 43. Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, Japan. Guideline on Quality, Safety, and Efficacy Assurance of Follow-on Biologics. GPO, 4 March 2009. 44. Quintiles. “Biosimilars Clinical Research and Regulation.” February 13, 2014. <https://www.quintiles.com/biosimilars-investigator/biosimilars-clinical-research-regulation> 45. English Regulatory Information Task Force, Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. Pharmaceutical Administration and Regulations in Japan. March 2013. 46. US Food and Drug Administration. “FDA issues draft guidance on biosimilar product development.” FDA News Release, 9 February 2012. June 22, 2014. < http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm291232.htm> 47. The Commonwealth Fund. International Profiles of Health Care Systems, 2013 Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. Thomson, Sarah et.al. eds. November 2013. 48. Silvers, J.B., “The Affordable Care Act: Objectives and Likely Results in an Imperfect World.” Annals of Family Medicine. Volume 11, September/October 2013. 402 - 405. 49. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Fast Facts.” March 10, 2014. < http://www.cms.gov/fastfacts/> 50. Thomson, Sarah and Ellias Mossialos, “Primary Care and Prescription Drugs: Coverage, Cost-Sharing, and Financial Protection in Six European Countries.” The Commonwealth Fund, Issues in International Health Policy. March 2010. 1-12. 51. Medicare.gov. “What does Medicare Part B cover?” March 10, 2014. <http://www.medicare.gov/what-medicare-covers/part-b/what-medicare-part-b-covers.html> 52. US Government Accountability Office. Medicare Information on Highest-Expenditure Part B Drugs. GPO, June 2013. 53. Fish & Richardson. bioLOGICS. Fall 2010. 54. Donna Lee Yesner, “Where Will Biosimilars Fit in Federal Drug Pricing Programs?” The Bureau of National Affairs, Pharmaceutical Law & Industry Report. 2011. 55. Medicare.gov. “Costs in the coverage gap.” March 10, 2014. <http://www.medicare.gov/part-d/costs/coverage-gap/part-d-coverage-gap.html> 56. Zhang Jie et. al., “Trends in the Use of Biologic Agents Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Enrolled in the US Medicare Program.” Arthritis Care & Research. Volume 65(11), November 2013. 1743-1751. 57. Jalpa A. Doshi, Pengxiang Li, and Andrea Puig, “Impact of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 on Utilization and Spending for Medicare Part B Covered Biologicals in Rheumatoid Arthritis.” Arthritis Care Res. Volume 62(3), March 2010. 354-361. 58. PricewaterhouseCoopers. Pharmacy Benefit Management Savings in Medicare and the Commercial Marketplace & the Cost of Proposed PBM Legislation, 2008-2017. March 2007. 59. Prime Therapeutics. A PBM Perspective on the Evolving Biosimilars Landscape. April 2013. 60. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Biologic drugs for the treatment of inflammatory disease in rheumatology, dermatology and gastroenterology. Commissioning guide, Implementing NICE guidance. GPO, November 2012. 61. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE guidance on biologic drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. GPO, May 2013. 62. Sabine Vogler et. al., “Pharmaceutical policies in European countries in response to the global financial crisis.” Southern Med Review. Volume 4(2), December 2011. 22-32. 63. Allen & Overy. “Biosimilar Substitution in France: No Way Back.” March 12, 2014. <http://www.allenovery.com/publications/en-gb/Pages/Biosimilar-Substitution-in-France--No-Way-Back-.aspx> 64. European Biopharmaceutical Enterprises. “French Biosimilar Law – No generics-style substitution policy.” March 12, 2014. <http://www.ebe-biopharma.eu/uploads/Modules/Newsroom/ebe-bs-statement-final_24.01.2014.pdf> 65. Randall S. Jones, “Health-Care Reform in Japan: Controlling Costs, Improving Quality and Ensuring Equity.” OECD Economics Department Working Papers. No. 739. December 2009. 66. Isao Kamae, “Ensuring Optimum Access: introduction of HTA in Japan.” First Health Policy Decision Makers Forum Asia-Pacific. The ESSEC Institute of Health Economics and Management, Singapore, 26-27 November 2012. March 11, 2014. <http://www.essec.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/rubrique_Vie_etudiante/Campus/ESSEC-ASIA-Pacific/First-Health-Policy-Decision-Makers-Forum-Asia-Pacific/Session5_Kamae_pres-13.pdf> 67. Nobuyuki Miyasaka, “Treatment trends of rheumatoid arthritis in Japan: Changes toward globalization and its unique innovation.” Inflammation and Regeneration. Volume 31(1), January 2011. 25-32. 68. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. EFPIA Japan Position on the introduction of Health Technology Assessment (HTA). April 2012. 69. Mamitaro Ohtsuki et. al., “Japanese guidance for use of biologics for psoriasis (the 2013 version).” Journal of Dermatology. Volume 40, 2013. 683-695. 70. Hsing, Benjamin C. and Sapna W. Palla, “Devising a patent strategy to protect the IP of biologics in light of ambiguities, loopholes and pitfalls in the regulatory scheme.” Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst. Volume 2(2), 2013. 153-155. 71. Kathleen Reavis Conner, “Strategies for product cannibalism.” Strategic Management Journal. Volume 9, 1988. 9-26. 72. Mark Kessel, “The problems with today’s pharmaceutical business- an outsider’s view.” Nature Biotechnology. Volume 29(1), January 2011. 27-33. 73. F. Hoffman-La Roche. “Roche Annual Report 2013.” 2014. May 8, 2014. <http://www.roche.com/investors/annual_reports.htm > 74. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. “Annual Report 2013.” 2014. May 8, 2014. <http://www.chugai-pharm.co.jp/hc/ss/english/ir/reports_downloads/annual_reports.html> 75. Pfizer Inc. “Form 10-K.” 2014. May 9, 2014. <http://www.pfizer.com/investors/sec_filings> 76. Abbvie Inc. “2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K.” 2014. May 5, 2014. <http://www.abbvieinvestor.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251551&p=irol-reportsannual> 77. Eisai Co., Ltd. “Annual Report 2013.” 2014. May 9, 2014. <http://www.eisai.com/ir/annual/index.html> 78. Novartis AG. “Form 20-F.” 2014. May 9, 2014. <http://www.novartis.com/investors/financial-results/annual-results.shtml> 79. Johnson & Johnson. “2013 Annual Report.” 2014. May 9, 2014. <http://www.investor.jnj.com/annual-reports.cfm> 80. Merck & Co., Inc. “Form 10-K.” 2014. May 9, 2014. <http://www.merck.com/investors/financial-reports/home.html> 81. Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co. “Summary of Financial Results for year ended March 31, 2014.” 2014. May 9, 2014. <http://www.mt-pharma.co.jp/shared/show.php?url=/e/ir/annual/index.html> 82. Lapointe, Serge and Julie-Anne Archambault, “Importance of non-patent exclusivities in the life-cycle management of pharmaceuticals.” Canadian Intellectual Property Review. Volume 27(1), June 2011. 115-138. 83. Heidi Ledford, “’Biosimilar’ drugs poised to penetrate market.” Nature. Volume 468, November 2010. 18-19. 84. PharmaPoint. Enbrel (Rheumatoid Arthritis) Forecast and Market Analysis. November 2012. 85. Birger Wernerfelt, “A resource-based view of the firm.” Strategic Management Journal. Volume 5, 1984. 171-180. 86. PricewaterhouseCoopers. Checking up on Taiwan healthcare: Market challenges and opportunities. June 2012. 87. Bureau of National Health Insurance, Department of Health, Executive Yuan, Taiwan. Guideline on the Examination and Registration of Drugs – the Guideline on Biosimilar Products (Ref. No. 0970333017) GPO, November 21, 2008. 88. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. “ISPOR Global Health Care Systems Road Map: Taiwan – Reimbursement Process.” July 16, 2014. < http://www.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/taiwan.asp> 89. Bureau of National Health Insurance, Department of Health, Executive Yuan, Taiwan. Universal Health Coverage in Taiwan GPO, May 2012. 90. American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei. 2014 White Paper English. June 2014. 91. World Trade Organization. “Understanding the WTO: The Agreements: Standards and Safety.” June 26, 2014. <http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm4_e.htm> 92. Hsieh, Chee-Ruey and Ya-Ming Liu, “Availability, Health-Care Costs, and Utilization Patterns of Biologics in Taiwan.” Value in Health. Volume 15, 2012. S35-S42. 93. Shin-Yi Chou et. al., “Provider Response to a Global Budget System: The Case of Drug Expenditures in Taiwan Hospitals.” March 2014. June 26, 2014. <https://editorialexpress.com/cgi-bin/conference/download.cgi?db_name=IIOC2014&paper_id=331> | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/5500 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | This thesis identifies major trends in biosimilar regulations and reimbursement policies, using the US, EU, and Japan pharmaceutical markets as the case subjects. Research is focused on a comparative analysis of regulatory policies with respect to market licensing of biosimilars and major reimbursement policies affecting market use of biosimilars. The information from this comparative analysis, as well as data reported by biologic manufacturers, is used to evaluate the corporate strategies that incumbent, patent holding biologic manufacturers are pursuing to respond to future biosimilar competition. Lastly, recommendations are provided to domestic biosimilar manufacturers planning to enter their home market of Taiwan.
Regulatory agencies in the US, EU, and Japan have established abbreviated review processes to allow biosimilars to come to market faster than if they were to be reviewed as completely new molecular entities. Key differences between the agencies are in granting ‘interchangeable/substitutable’ labels and in the timing of the first biosimilar submission. For instance, the US FDA’s option for biosimilars to be licensed as ‘interchangeable,’ a shorter time in which biosimlars have to wait to submit applications, and an exclusivity period for the first-to-market biosimilar will theoretically encourage wider biosimilar adoption in the market. The US is expected to have wide variation in biosimilar reimbursement policies as policies will vary on the size of the insurance market and the level of competition between plan administrators. On the other hand, the EU member states analysed for reimbursement policies - Germany, France, and the UK - and Japan have national-level policies that influence the type of pharmaceuticals covered as benefits and their reimbursement prices. European countries were found to use pricing tools, such as negotiated discounts, reference pricing, and tendering, that should provide an opportunity for biosimilars to gain market share. Differences in major regulations and reimbursement policies in the studied markets were found to lead to differences in the degree of potential competition between biologics and biosimilars. In response to greater potential biosimilar competition in the US, biologics marketed for the US were more likely to take legal action to defend patent rights. In Japan, the market determined to have the lowest degree of potential biosimilar competition, the incumbent biologic manufacturers were more likely to apply for additional indications, which can be revenue increasing only without biosimilar competition. Lastly, the EU, which is the more mature system in terms of regulation and reimbursement policies for dealing with biosimilars, also sees incumbents applying for new indications, as well as developing new biologics to cannibalise sales of the existing biologic. Finally, advice for Taiwan domestic biosimilar manufacturers are to work with the government in developing regulations and health insurance policies more favorable for biosimilars, and to gain first-mover advantage as preferred suppliers for large hospitals and medical centers, focussing on additional incentives manufacturers can offer providers for biosimilars requiring infusions. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-15T18:00:49Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-103-R01749037-1.pdf: 4140289 bytes, checksum: b5803ec7f6c65a6fa74deec5752227fa (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Abstract ii
List of Figures and Tables vi Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Research Methodology 2 1.2 Structure of Thesis 3 Chapter 2: Background on Biologics and Biosimilars 5 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 Definition of Biologic 6 2.3 Definition of Biosimilar 8 2.4 Literature Review 9 Chapter 3: Regulation of Biosimilars. Comparison of FDA, EMA, and PDMA 11 3.1 Introduction 11 3.2 Regulatory Mandate of FDA, EMA, and PDMA 11 3.3 Regulation of Traditional Generic Drugs and the Challenge of Biosimilars 13 3.4 Regulation of Biosimilars by the US FDA 15 3.5 Regulation of Biosimilars by the EMA 17 3.6 Regulation of Biosimilars by the Japan PDMA 20 3.7 Discussion 22 Chapter 4: Reimbursement Systems for Biosimilars. Comparison of US, Europe, and Japan 24 4.1 Introduction 24 4.2 US Reimbursement of Biosimilars 26 4.2.1 Medicare Part B 26 4.2.2 Medicare Part B Biosimilars Policy 27 4.2.3 Medicare Part D and the Role of Pharmacy Benefit Management 28 4.3 Europe Reimbursement of Biosimilars. Comparison of Germany, France, and the UK 30 4.3.1 Introduction 30 4.3.2 National Health Technology Assessment Agencies 31 4.3.3 National and Sub-National Insurance Pricing Policies 33 4.3.4 Biosimilar Substitutions in EU Member States 34 4.4 Japan’s Reimbursement of Biosimilars 35 4.4.1 Health Insurance in Japan 35 4.4.2 Issues Facing Reimbursements of Biosimilars in Japan 36 4.5 Discussion 37 Chapter 5: Corporate Strategy - Incumbent Response to Future Biosimilar Competition 40 5.1 Introduction 40 5.2 Hypothesis Development 41 5.2.1 Identification of Factors Influencing Strategy 41 5.2.2 Identification of Corporate Strategies 43 5.2.3 Assumptions about Corporate Strategies 45 5.2.4 Hypotheses 45 5.3 Data Collection Process 46 5.3.1 Sources of Data 46 5.3.2 Competitive Forces in Markets 46 5.3.3 Patent Protection of Biologics 47 5.3.4 Risk to Company’s Overall Business 48 5.3.5 Corporate Strategies 48 5.4 Descriptive Analysis 49 5.4.1 Description of Data 49 5.4.2 Hypothesis 1: Competitive Markets and Revenue Protecting Strategies 51 5.4.3 Hypothesis 2: Patent and Time Horizon of Strategic Response 53 5.4.4 Importance of Biologic Sales to the Overall Business 56 5.5 Discussion 58 Chapter 6: Conclusion 61 6.1 Summary of Research Findings 61 6.2 Recommendations for Biosimilar Manufacturers in Taiwan 63 6.2.1 Recommendations for Competing Against Biologic Incumbents 64 6.2.2 Recommendations for Competing Against Multinational Generic Companies 66 6.3 Limitations and Directions for Future Research 67 References 69 Appendix 1: NICE Treatment Algorithm for Rheumatoid Arthritis 77 Appendix 2: Detailed Summary of Company Actions in Response to Biosimilar Competition 78 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.title | 生技仿製藥規範與公費報銷政策對藥廠經營策略之影響 — 美國、歐洲與日本制度之比較分析 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Biosimilar Regulations and Reimbursement Policies and Impact on Corporate Strategy: A Comparative Analysis of the US, EU, and Japan Pharmaceutical Markets | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 101-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 張啟仁(Chee Jen Chang),余峻瑜(Jiun Yu Yu) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 生技仿製藥,比較分析, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | biosimilars,comparative analysis,corporate strategy, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 79 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2014-07-28 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 企業管理碩士專班 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 管理學院企業管理專班(Global MBA) | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-103-1.pdf | 4.04 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。
