[email protected] +44 20 8123 2220 (UK) +1 732 587 5005 (US) Contact Us | FAQ |

The 2023-2028 Outlook for Vaginitis Therapeutics in the United States

October 2022 | 502 pages | ID: 245DC1B7436DEN
ICON Group International

US$ 595.00

E-mail Delivery (PDF)

Download PDF Leaflet

Wire Transfer
Checkout Later
Need Help? Ask a Question
This study covers the latent demand outlook for vaginitis therapeutics across the states and cities of the United States. Latent demand (in millions of U.S. dollars), or potential industry earnings (P.I.E.) estimates are given across some 12,600 cities in the United States. For each city in question, the percent share the city is of its state and of the United States as a whole is reported. These comparative benchmarks allow the reader to quickly gauge a city vis-à-vis others. This statistical approach can prove very useful to distribution and/or sales force strategies. Using econometric models which project fundamental economic dynamics within each state and city, latent demand estimates are created for vaginitis therapeutics. This report does not discuss the specific players in the market serving the latent demand, nor specific details at the product level. The study also does not consider short-term cyclicalities that might affect realized sales. The study, therefore, is strategic in nature, taking an aggregate and long-run view, irrespective of the players or products involved.

In this report we define the sales of vaginitis therapeutics as including all commonly understood products and/or services falling within this broad category, irrespective of product packaging, formulation, size, or form. Companies participating in this industry include Bausch Health, Bayer, DAR? Bioscience, Inc., Enzo Biochem, Hennepin Life Sciences, LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lumavita AG., Lupin, Merck & Company, Mission Pharmacal, Novartis, Perrigo Company, Pfizer, PhagoMed Biopharma GmbH, Sanofi, Starpharma Holdings, Symbiomix Therapeutics LLC., TenNor Therapeutics, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Tolmar Pharmaceuticals. In addition to the sources indicated, additional information available to the public via news and/or press releases published by players in the industry was considered in defining and calibrating this category. All figures are in a common currency (U.S. dollars, millions) and are not adjusted for inflation (i.e., they are current values). Exchange rates used to convert to U.S. dollars are averages for the year in question. Future exchange rates are assumed to be constant in the future at the current level (the average of the year of this publication's release in 2022).
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW
1.2 WHAT IS LATENT DEMAND AND THE P.I.E.?
1.3 THE METHODOLOGY
  1.3.1 STEP 1. PRODUCT DEFINITION AND DATA COLLECTION
  1.3.2 STEP 2. FILTERING AND SMOOTHING
  1.3.3 STEP 3. FILLING IN MISSING VALUES
  1.3.4 STEP 4. VARYING PARAMETER, NON-LINEAR ESTIMATION
  1.3.5 STEP 5. FIXED-PARAMETER LINEAR ESTIMATION
  1.3.6 STEP 6. AGGREGATION AND BENCHMARKING
1.4 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
  1.4.1 CATEGORY DEFINITION
  1.4.2 UNITS
  1.4.3 METHODOLOGY

2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

2.1 LATENT DEMAND IN THE UNITED STATES
2.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES
2.3 TOP 100 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES

3 FAR WEST

3.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ALASKA
3.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ALASKA
3.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - CALIFORNIA
3.5 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - CALIFORNIA
3.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - HAWAII
3.7 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - HAWAII
3.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEVADA
3.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEVADA
3.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - OREGON
3.11 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - OREGON
3.12 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WASHINGTON
3.13 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - WASHINGTON

4 GREAT LAKES

4.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ILLINOIS
4.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ILLINOIS
4.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - INDIANA
4.5 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - INDIANA
4.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MICHIGAN
4.7 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MICHIGAN
4.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - OHIO
4.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - OHIO
4.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WISCONSIN
4.11 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - WISCONSIN

5 MID-ATLANTIC

5.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - DELAWARE
5.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - DELAWARE
5.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
5.5 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
5.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MARYLAND
5.7 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MARYLAND
5.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW JERSEY
5.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEW JERSEY
5.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW YORK
5.11 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEW YORK
5.12 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - PENNSYLVANIA
5.13 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - PENNSYLVANIA

6 NEW ENGLAND

6.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - CONNECTICUT
6.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - CONNECTICUT
6.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MAINE
6.5 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MAINE
6.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MASSACHUSETTS
6.7 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MASSACHUSETTS
6.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW HAMPSHIRE
6.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEW HAMPSHIRE
6.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - RHODE ISLAND
6.11 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - RHODE ISLAND
6.12 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - VERMONT
6.13 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - VERMONT

7 PLAINS

7.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - IOWA
7.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - IOWA
7.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - KANSAS
7.5 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - KANSAS
7.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MINNESOTA
7.7 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MINNESOTA
7.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MISSOURI
7.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MISSOURI
7.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEBRASKA
7.11 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEBRASKA
7.12 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NORTH DAKOTA
7.13 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NORTH DAKOTA
7.14 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - SOUTH DAKOTA
7.15 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - SOUTH DAKOTA

8 ROCKIES

8.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
8.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - COLORADO
8.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - COLORADO
8.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - IDAHO
8.5 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - IDAHO
8.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MONTANA
8.7 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MONTANA
8.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - UTAH
8.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - UTAH
8.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WYOMING
8.11 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - WYOMING

9 SOUTHEAST

9.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
9.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ALABAMA
9.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ALABAMA
9.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ARKANSAS
9.5 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ARKANSAS
9.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - FLORIDA
9.7 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - FLORIDA
9.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - GEORGIA
9.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - GEORGIA
9.10 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - KENTUCKY
9.11 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - KENTUCKY
9.12 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - LOUISIANA
9.13 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - LOUISIANA
9.14 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - MISSISSIPPI
9.15 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - MISSISSIPPI
9.16 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NORTH CAROLINA
9.17 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NORTH CAROLINA
9.18 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - SOUTH CAROLINA
9.19 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - SOUTH CAROLINA
9.20 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - TENNESSEE
9.21 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - TENNESSEE
9.22 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - VIRGINIA
9.23 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - VIRGINIA
9.24 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - WEST VIRGINIA
9.25 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - WEST VIRGINIA

10 SOUTHWEST

10.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
10.2 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - ARIZONA
10.3 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - ARIZONA
10.4 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - NEW MEXICO
10.5 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - NEW MEXICO
10.6 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - OKLAHOMA
10.7 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - OKLAHOMA
10.8 LATENT DEMAND BY YEAR - TEXAS
10.9 CITIES SORTED BY RANK - TEXAS

11 DISCLAIMERS, WARRANTIES, AND USER AGREEMENT PROVISIONS

11.1 DISCLAIMERS & SAFE HARBOR
11.2 ICON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. USER AGREEMENT PROVISIONS


More Publications