I'm not as up to speed in the MS market as some here. I gather the perceived safety/efficacy ratio for Copaxone is higher than that for Gilenya and several other upcoming oral therapies, especially cladribine. Teva's own laquinimod, and also Sanofi's teriflunomide seem to be more tilted to a higher safety/efficacy ratio, as well. Although the former's relation to linomide will be a concern until P3 data provides more color. The latter is an active metabolite of a myelosuppressive drug, and a case of PML showed up in one study. I gather there is a small study comparing it directly to copaxone.
I think that since the expectation was that Gilenya would get a more restrictive label it was not seen as disrupting the competition so much. Now I wonder about that. And this is not even taking convenience into account. The Gilenya approval is certainly not an "incremental positive" for any other therapy, unless the approval is taken to mean the FDA is going easier on MS drugs. And that won't help those already approved.
So there may have been some clinical data released on these various programs that have changed the general picture since I last looked, but I don't think I accept the ML physician survey so much now, since the responses were likely based on a more restrictive label than Gilenya actually got.
Regards, RockRat
Edit: the combo study of copaxone and teriflunomide produced results this past spring, if anyone missed it:
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
