诺和诺德和诺华产品的起源:试点确定公众贡献的框架。

IF 2.5 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2025-08-05 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20523211.2025.2534919
Daniel Fabian, Ozren Sehic, Claudia Wild
{"title":"诺和诺德和诺华产品的起源:试点确定公众贡献的框架。","authors":"Daniel Fabian, Ozren Sehic, Claudia Wild","doi":"10.1080/20523211.2025.2534919","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The objective of this case study is to pilot a framework of public contributions examining the origins of products from two major European pharmaceutical companies, Novartis and Novo Nordisk, that received approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between January 2014 and May 2024. Our primary focus was to investigate the extent of public contributions, including government grants, public-private partnerships, and other forms of public funding, that supported the development of these products. Additionally, we explored whether these companies primarily relied on in-house research and development (R&D) capabilities or acquired these products at various stages of their development.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a thorough analysis of the products approved during the specified period, identifying the origins of each product. The analysis included detailed examination of public databases, financial disclosures, and scientific publications to trace the flow of public funding. We built on a list of sources from our previous studies to increase the level of detail.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Novartis demonstrated a tendency to acquire promising products and technologies from smaller biotech firms and other pharmaceutical companies, particularly in therapeutic areas where it sought to strengthen its market position like oncology (16 out of 25 products acquired, licensed or co-developed). Conversely, Novo Nordisk predominantly advanced its products through internal R&D efforts, although it also engaged in selective acquisitions to complement its core capabilities (two out of six products acquired, licensed or co-developed). For Novartis eleven products received public support, for Novo Nordisk one product did.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings reveal that both Novartis and Novo Nordisk use strategic acquisitions with Novartis relying more heavily on it than Novo Nordisk. Our framework for analyzing public contributions was sufficient for the product portfolios of the firms analyzed and helped us identifying public contributions.</p>","PeriodicalId":16740,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","volume":"18 1","pages":"2534919"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12326385/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The origins of Novo Nordisk and Novartis products: piloting a framework to identify the public contributions.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Fabian, Ozren Sehic, Claudia Wild\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20523211.2025.2534919\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The objective of this case study is to pilot a framework of public contributions examining the origins of products from two major European pharmaceutical companies, Novartis and Novo Nordisk, that received approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between January 2014 and May 2024. Our primary focus was to investigate the extent of public contributions, including government grants, public-private partnerships, and other forms of public funding, that supported the development of these products. Additionally, we explored whether these companies primarily relied on in-house research and development (R&D) capabilities or acquired these products at various stages of their development.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a thorough analysis of the products approved during the specified period, identifying the origins of each product. The analysis included detailed examination of public databases, financial disclosures, and scientific publications to trace the flow of public funding. We built on a list of sources from our previous studies to increase the level of detail.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Novartis demonstrated a tendency to acquire promising products and technologies from smaller biotech firms and other pharmaceutical companies, particularly in therapeutic areas where it sought to strengthen its market position like oncology (16 out of 25 products acquired, licensed or co-developed). Conversely, Novo Nordisk predominantly advanced its products through internal R&D efforts, although it also engaged in selective acquisitions to complement its core capabilities (two out of six products acquired, licensed or co-developed). For Novartis eleven products received public support, for Novo Nordisk one product did.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings reveal that both Novartis and Novo Nordisk use strategic acquisitions with Novartis relying more heavily on it than Novo Nordisk. Our framework for analyzing public contributions was sufficient for the product portfolios of the firms analyzed and helped us identifying public contributions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"2534919\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12326385/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20523211.2025.2534919\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20523211.2025.2534919","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本案例研究的目的是试点一个公众贡献框架,对2014年1月至2024年5月期间获得欧洲药品管理局(EMA)批准的两家主要欧洲制药公司诺华(Novartis)和诺和诺德(Novo Nordisk)产品的来源进行审查。我们的主要重点是调查支持这些产品开发的公共捐助的程度,包括政府拨款、公私合作伙伴关系和其他形式的公共资助。此外,我们探讨了这些公司是否主要依赖于内部研发(R&D)能力,还是在其发展的不同阶段获得这些产品。方法:我们对规定期限内批准的产品进行了彻底的分析,确定了每个产品的来源。分析包括对公共数据库、财务披露和科学出版物的详细检查,以追踪公共资金的流动。我们从以前的研究中建立了一个来源列表,以增加细节水平。结果:诺华表现出从小型生物技术公司和其他制药公司收购有前景的产品和技术的趋势,特别是在治疗领域,诺华试图加强其市场地位,如肿瘤(25个产品中有16个获得收购、许可或合作开发)。相反,诺和诺德主要通过内部研发工作来提升其产品,尽管它也参与选择性收购以补充其核心能力(六分之二的产品被收购,获得许可或共同开发)。诺华的11个产品得到了公众的支持,诺和诺德的一个产品得到了公众的支持。结论:我们的研究结果表明,诺华和诺和诺德都使用战略收购,但诺华对战略收购的依赖程度高于诺和诺德。我们分析公共贡献的框架对于所分析的公司的产品组合来说是足够的,并帮助我们确定公共贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The origins of Novo Nordisk and Novartis products: piloting a framework to identify the public contributions.

The origins of Novo Nordisk and Novartis products: piloting a framework to identify the public contributions.

The origins of Novo Nordisk and Novartis products: piloting a framework to identify the public contributions.

The origins of Novo Nordisk and Novartis products: piloting a framework to identify the public contributions.

Background: The objective of this case study is to pilot a framework of public contributions examining the origins of products from two major European pharmaceutical companies, Novartis and Novo Nordisk, that received approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between January 2014 and May 2024. Our primary focus was to investigate the extent of public contributions, including government grants, public-private partnerships, and other forms of public funding, that supported the development of these products. Additionally, we explored whether these companies primarily relied on in-house research and development (R&D) capabilities or acquired these products at various stages of their development.

Methods: We conducted a thorough analysis of the products approved during the specified period, identifying the origins of each product. The analysis included detailed examination of public databases, financial disclosures, and scientific publications to trace the flow of public funding. We built on a list of sources from our previous studies to increase the level of detail.

Results: Novartis demonstrated a tendency to acquire promising products and technologies from smaller biotech firms and other pharmaceutical companies, particularly in therapeutic areas where it sought to strengthen its market position like oncology (16 out of 25 products acquired, licensed or co-developed). Conversely, Novo Nordisk predominantly advanced its products through internal R&D efforts, although it also engaged in selective acquisitions to complement its core capabilities (two out of six products acquired, licensed or co-developed). For Novartis eleven products received public support, for Novo Nordisk one product did.

Conclusion: Our findings reveal that both Novartis and Novo Nordisk use strategic acquisitions with Novartis relying more heavily on it than Novo Nordisk. Our framework for analyzing public contributions was sufficient for the product portfolios of the firms analyzed and helped us identifying public contributions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
9.50%
发文量
81
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信