Marketing research of the domestic market of medicines for the local treatment of dry skin




medicines for the local treatment of dry skin, pharmaceutical market, market analysis, market share, price categories.


Aim. To analyze the range of medicines for the local treatment of dry skin at the domestic pharmaceutical market, as well as their demand, supply, the level of competition and price characteristics.

Materials and methods. The analysis was carried out based on the data of the State Register of Medicinal Products of Ukraine, electronic databases, information retrieval programme “Morion” and price lists of the weekly journal “Apteka” as of May 5, 2017. The logical, system-analytical, structure-functional and comparative methods of analysis were used in the work.

Results. It has been found that 58 % of the registered medicines for the local treatment of dry skin (group D01A according to the ATC-classification) are manufactured in the form of ointments, 21 % – in the form of a solution or liquid, and a small proportion of drugs presented in the form of emulsions, cream and paste. In addition, the vast majority of drugs in group D01A (79 %) are medicines of domestic production, while 21% of drugs are foreign products manufactured by the companies of Switzerland, Germany, Ireland and Poland. The analysis conducted also indicates that most drugs in group D01A are presented in the form of monopreparations, and the share of the combined drugs is 18 % of the total number of trade names.

The number of packs of drugs sold in group D01A in the retail prices for the previous year has been determined. It has been found that the average price value for a pack of the drug in the group as a whole is at the level of 18,57 UAH and the average price value of imported drugs exceeds the price of domestic drugs from 4.5 times in group D01AЕ to 16 times in group D01AВ.

According to the analysis of sales by separate trademarks it has been found that the market leader is the drug “Sudocrem” (Ireland), which takes 52 % of the market share in monetary terms, “Excipial U Hydrolotion” (Switzerland) has the second place, “Glycerol” (Ukraine) is in the third place.

Conclusions. The results of the marketing research conducted give the opportunity to make conclusions concerning the market structure of medicines for the local treatment of dry skin, domestic monocomponent drugs significantly dominate in its range. At the same time, the demand analysis shows the consumer loyalty to the combined drugs, most of them are manufactured abroad and have high prices. Thus, it is appropriate to replenish the market with affordable domestic combined medicinal products. It has been found that the market of medicines for the local treatment of dry skin is moderately concentrated, therefore, the entrance to this market segment is entirely possible, but it requires marketing efforts.


1. Bolotnaia, L. A. (2012). Ukrainskyi zhurnal dermatologіi, venerologіi, kosmetologіi, 4, 98–101.

2. Ademola, J., Frazier, C., Kim, S.J. etal. (2002). Clinical evaluation of 40% urea and 12% ammonium lactate in the treatment of xerosis. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol., 3(3), 217–222.

3. Barcoa, D., Gimenez-Arnaub, A. (2008). Xerosis: A dysfunction of the epidermal barrier.Actas Dermo-sifiliogr., 99, 671–682.

4. Galnikіna, S. O. (2003). Ukrainskyizhurnaldermatologіi, venerologіi, kosmetologіi, 3, 18–20.

5. Dmytrenko, S. V. (2014). Ukrainskyi zhurnal dermatologіi, venerologіi, kosmetologіi, 3, 7–16.

6. Kaliuzhna, L. D. (2009). Hvoroby shkіry zhіnok u vіkovomu aspektі. Kyiv : Gramota, 127.

7. Allman, R. M. (2003). PressureUlcers. PrinciplesofGeriatricMedicineandGerontology. W. R. Hazzard, J. P. Blass, J. B. Halter etal. (Eds.).(5th ed.). NewYork: McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1563–1569.

8. Beers, M.H., Jones, T.V., Berkwits, M. etal.(Eds.).(2004). TheMerckManualofHealth&Aging. NJ: MerckResearchLaboratories, 432–433.

9. Ellis, C., Luger, T., Abecketal, D. (2003). International consensus conference on atopic dermatitis II (ICAADII): clinical update and current treatment strategies. Br. J. Dermatol., 148 (suppl. 63), 3–10.

10. Keshileva, R. K., Rahmatov, A. B. (2010). Ukrainskyi zhurnal dermatologіi, venerologіi, kosmetologіi, 2, 51–56.

11. Barbinov, V. V. Grashin, R. A., Ol’shamovskaia, A. O. (2009). Rosiiskii zhurnal kozhnykh venerolohicheskikh boleznei, 6,30–32.

12. Bondarenko, L. O., Tikhonov, O. І., Bashura, O. G., Kudrik, B. T. (2015). Farmatsevtichnii zhurnal, 4, 43–51.

13. Dmytrenko, S. V. (2015). Ukrainskyi zhurnal dermatologіi, venerologіi, kosmetologіi, 3 (58), 33–36.

14. Mazorchuk, N. B. (2009). Lіky Ukrainy, 10, 133–134.

15. Nechyporenko, N. M., Kaliuzhna, L. D. (2015). Ukrainskyizhurnaldermatologіi, venerologіi, kosmetologіi, 4, 66–72.

16. Olisova, O. Yu., Vekrhoturova, E. G. (2007). Lechaschii vrach, 5, 32–34.

17. Nakaz MOZ Ukrainy vіd 08.05.2009 No. 312 “Pro zatverdzhennia klіnіchnykh protokolіv nadannia medychnoi dopomogykhvorym na dermatovenerologіchnі zakhvoriuvannia”. Retrieved from:

18. Baza dannyh “Lekarstvennie sredstva” OOO “Morion”. Retrieved from:

19. Derzhavnyi reestr lіkars’kykh zasobіv. On-line versіia. Retrieved from:

20. Blіhar, V. E., Chumak, V. T., Mal’tsev, V. І., Morozov, A. M., Parіi, V. D., Stepanenko, A. V., Dumenko, T. M. (Eds.). (2012). Derzhavnyi formuliar lіkars’kyh zasobіv. (Vyp. 3). Kyiv.

21. Kovalenko, V. N. (Ed.). (2017). Kompendium 2016 – Lekarstvennye preparaty. Kyiv: MORION, 2270.

22. Dmitrik, E. (2017). Ezhenedel’nik Apteka, 2 (1073).Retrieved from:

23. Dmitrik, E. (2017). Ezhenedel’nik Apteka, 4 (1075).Retrieved from:





Social marketing and pharmacoeconomic research