Company profiles & report cards
|
1
1
|
GSK plc |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
4.06 | |
|
2
3
|
Johnson & Johnson |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
4.03 | |
|
3
7
|
AstraZeneca plc |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
3.93 | |
|
4
2
|
Novartis AG |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
3.87 | |
|
5
8
|
Merck KGaA |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
3.72 | |
|
6
4
|
Pfizer Inc |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
3.62 | |
|
7
6
|
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
3.51 | |
|
8
5
|
Sanofi |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
3.47 | |
|
9
13
|
Bayer AG |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
3.36 | |
|
10
9
|
Roche Holding AG |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
3.23 | |
|
11
10
|
Novo Nordisk A/S |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
2.97 | |
|
12
11
|
Eisai Co, Ltd |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
2.95 | |
|
13
12
|
Boehringer Ingelheim |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
2.93 | |
|
14
14
|
Gilead Sciences |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
2.84 | |
|
15
19
|
Bristol Myers Squibb |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
2.60 | |
|
16
14
|
Astellas Pharma Inc |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
2.46 | |
|
17
16
|
Daiichi Sankyo Co, Ltd |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
2.20 | |
|
18
15
|
Merck & Co, Inc |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
2.15 | |
|
19
17
|
AbbVie Inc |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
1.84 | |
|
20
18
|
Eli Lilly & Co |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
1.79 |
0
1
2
3
4
5
|
In the 2021 Index, dense ranking was used. In the 2022 Index, standard competitive ranking is used. Therefore, a direct comparison with the previous ranks of AbbVie, Astellas, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly and Merck & Co, Inc (MSD) is not possible.
The ranking above shows the position and score of each company in the 2022 Index (left) and 2021 Index (right). Click on a company's name to go to its full report card.
Insights
GSK tops the ranking
GSK retains the number one spot, followed closely by Johnson & Johnson. AstraZeneca has newly joined the top three. Merck joins the top five, and Bayer rises into the top ten.
Report Cards highlight next steps
The Index includes a set of 20 Report Cards that provide detailed overviews of each company’s performance, and outline specific opportunities for improvement tailored to each company.
Some progress, some stagnation
There are signs of progress across the industry, with more pharmaceutical companies taking an increasingly systematic approach to access to medicine. However, progress is not uniform in all areas. For example, there have been limited changes in R&D pipeline.
Subrankings
Governance of Access
The top spot is held by Pfizer. The company provides evidence of well-established structures of governance and management, with responsibility assigned and access-to-medicine incentives offered at the highest level, It takes a strong approach to ensuring ethical business practices, and also has stringent compliance processes across its operations. Joint for second place are AstraZeneca, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Takeda.
Research & Development
The top spot is retained by GSK, followed closely by Johnson & Johnson and Novartis. Out of all 20 companies, GSK has the largest number of projects in development that target priority diseases such as malaria and HIV/AIDS. Johnson & Johnson and Novartis also engage in R&D for priority diseases, with both companies having access plans for LMICs covering all late-stage R&D projects in the pipeline.
Product Delivery
AstraZeneca takes the top spot in Product Delivery, leading in its approach to patent transparency and sharing of intellectual property assets. It has made progress by licensing and transferring technology for its COVID-19 vaccine. GSK and Johnson & Johnson complete the top three, performing well across all assessment criteria, including equitable access strategies. Novartis comes 4th; notably, in 2022 it became the first company to agree to a non-exclusive voluntary licence for a medicine to treat a non-communicable disease.
Ranking Analysis
Four companies stand out as leaders
In the 2022 Index, GSK retains the number one spot, followed closely by Johnson & Johnson. AstraZeneca has risen to third, with Novartis in fourth. These four companies are the clear leaders among the companies assessed by the Index...
GSK (1st) tops both the overall ranking and the R&D sub-ranking. The company develops treatments and vaccines for diseases that disproportionally affect people in LMICs. It is also in the top three of the other two Technical Areas, and its access-to-medicine strategy is central to its approach to ensuring that medicines reach those that need them most.
Johnson & Johnson (2nd) demonstrates strong performance in all three Technical Areas and performs well across all assessment criteria including access strategies, R&D access planning and capacity building.
AstraZeneca (3rd) has newly joined the top three, ranking as the number one company in the Product Delivery Technical Area by excelling in its approach to patent transparency and technology transfers. The company also performs highly in Governance of Access. Novartis (4th) performs well in R&D access planning and equitable access strategies and was the first company to agree a non-exclusive voluntary licence covering a product for a non-communicable disease.
High-performing companies
The companies ranked 5th to 10th are high performers on access to medicine, competing closely in the overall ranking. Merck (5th) excels in R&D access planning, with access plans in place for all late-stage R&D projects and performs strongly its approach to patent transparency. Pfizer (6th) leads in Governance of Access for its approach to incentivising responsible promotional practices. Takeda (7th) is a top performing company in R&D access planning and equitable access strategies for products that are administered by healthcare practitioners...
Sanofi (8th) performs well in engaging in supranational procurement mechanisms to supply products in LMICs they also engage in R&D neglected diseases that disproportionally affect people in poorer countries. Bayer (9th) has joined the top ten, improving its performance in R&D access planning and demonstrating best practice with the broad geographic reach of its plans. Roche (10th) engages in high quality health system strengthening initiatives and has improved in its approach to R&D access planning.
Middle-performing companies
Novo Nordisk (11th) has strong policies governing access and builds capacity by engaging in health systems strengthening. Eisai (12th) has an average performance overall across the three Technical Areas, with a particularly strong performance in long-term product donations. Boehringer Ingelheim (13th) has an average performance in the Technical Areas, but has introduced a comprehensive new framework for R&D access planning, and performs well in expanding access via inclusive business models...
Gilead (14th) is a leading company in non-exclusive voluntary licensing, but its performance in R&D and Governance of Access is below average. Bristol Myers Squibb (15th) has greatly improved its ranking this year, strengthening its performance in Product Delivery through engaging in health systems strengthening and access strategies. In R&D it is carrying out several clinical trials in countries in scope and commits to registering successful R&D candidates in those countries.
Low-performing companies
The bottom of the ranking is rounded out by five companies whose performance is below average for much for criteria assessed by the Index. Astellas (16th) has strengthened its access planning processes during R&D and has comparatively strong policies in place for Governance of Access, but falls behind its peers in applying equitable access strategies to its products in LMICs. Daiichi Sankyo (17th) performs relatively well in intellectual property (IP) sharing, but lags in all Technical Areas...
MSD (18th) has improved in R&D with the introduction of a new access planning policy. Yet is has a comparatively poor performance in the other two Technical Areas, Governance of Access and Product Delivery, and is among the least transparent companies in scope. AbbVie (19th) scores poorly across all Technical Areas but particularly lags in R&D, in both product development and R&D access planning. Eli Lilly (20th) performs poorly, ranking in the bottom five in all three Technical Areas. The company chooses not to disclose information across a range of issues, nor to make relevant information available in the public domain.
How companies were assessed in the 2022 Index
The 2022 Access to Medicine Index assesses 20 of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies in relation to their efforts to expand access to medicine for people living in 108 low- and middle-income countries. It looks at 83 diseases, conditions and pathogens, which have been identified as the most critical priorities. Companies are scored and ranked based on 31 indicators which are spread across three Technical Areas: Governance of Access, Research & Development, and Product Delivery.
The Methodology for the 2022 Access to Medicine Index
Read moreAMR Benchmark
Assessing how pharma companies tackle drug resistance & ensure appropriate access
The 2021 Antimicrobial Resistance Benchmark featured Report Cards for 17 pharma companies with a major stake in the anti-infectives space, as well as impactful analysis of industry trends. In November 2023, the Access to Medicine Foundation followed up by zooming in on the Opportunities set out in their Report Cards, assessing where progress has been made – and where action is still required.
Large R&D-based companies
Generic medicine manufacturers
Tracking progress on Opportunities
To stimulate progress, the Access to Medicine Foundation sets “Opportunities” for individual companies to pursue – a groundbreaking, practical and proven approach to moving companies in the right direction on critical access-to-medicine priorities. The 2021 AMR Benchmark pinpointed 3-5 tailored Opportunities for each of the 17 pharmaceutical companies in scope, identifying specific ways for companies to do more to curb AMR and improve access to antimicrobial products in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
In November 2023, using data submitted by companies and information from the public domain, the Foundation published a report that provides a vital update on the progress achieved by these 17 companies in with regards to each of their Opportunities.
Findings in 2023
The industry analysis in the November 2023 report reveals collective trends, both in terms of action and inaction, shedding light on the factors that have influenced the extent of progress achieved thus far – and where more action is required from companies. For Opportunities related to access, some progress can be seen among companies – especially in expanding product registration and engaging in long-term initiatives to boost availability and affordability. However, despite a handful of acquisitions to expand R&D pipelines, R&D projects targeting priority pathogens and urgent AMR threats are still lacking, and there has been no progress on Opportunities to delink bonuses from sales volume.
Antimicrobial Resistance Benchmark 2021
Download2021 Benchmark – Trends
Good practice is becoming more common. Action to address access lags behind.
Good practice is most notable in the plans to ensure wider access to and responsible use of future products, as well as in the steps taken to curb the release of antibiotic waste into the environment. In stewardship, generic medicine manufacturers are taking a more active role. However, all companies miss opportunities to improve access in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where the need is greatest and where people face the greatest threat from superbug infections.
2021 Benchmark – scoring companies
The goal of the Antimicrobial Resistance Benchmark is to guide and incentivise pharmaceutical companies to do more to tackle drug resistance and ensure appropriate access to antibiotics, antifungals and other antimicrobial products. It identifies good ideas for limiting AMR and highlights where action is still required.
The methodology for the 2021 Benchmark was developed after consultation with an Expert Committee, as well as many other global health stakeholders, and was published in October 2020. The 2021 Benchmark evaluated 17 companies, including 8 large research-based companies and 9 generic medicine manufacturers, looking at their performance across a set of 20 metrics. To fairly score and compare the companies, the Benchmark evaluated them only in those metrics that were relevant to their portfolio and pipelines.
2021: Insights - Research & Development
GSK maintains lead in antibacterial and antifungal R&D to target priority pathogens
GSK's pipeline is the largest evaluated, with 31 projects in the pipeline. It addresses more pathogens designated as ‘critical’ and/or ‘urgent’ threats, and has most vaccines projects underway.
R&D pipeline grows, but remains small overall
Since the previous analysis, 22 projects have left the pipeline, but there have been 38 additions. As a result, the pipeline has modestly increased in size, by 15 projects, from 77 to 92.
Sustained R&D for AMR from most companies
Only one of the eight companies evaluated is not currently active in R&D targeting priority pathogens. The remaining seven have sustained their involvement, and several have expanded their pipelines. Pfizer and GSK stand out for adding five and four projects, respectively.
Which pathogens are receiving most attention in R&D
The World Health Organization and US Centers for Disease Control have identified the most dangerous pathogens due to resistance. The eight large research-based companies evaluated are developing 92 medicine and vaccine projects that target them.
2021: Insights - Responsible manufacturing
Progress on limiting antibiotic waste in environment
More companies are setting and enforcing limits for antibacterial material that can be released in manufacturing wastewaters. Companies generally perform best at implementing these limits at their own factories. However, just 5.2% of third-party manufacturing sites are reported as compliant.
More companies require suppliers to set AMR limits
Companies generally perform best at setting and monitoring specific AMR-related environmental standards at their own manufacturing sites. For the first time, the Benchmark reports that three generic medicine companies now require suppliers also meet such standards.
Shionogi is first to publish the details of its antibacterial waste-management performance
Shionogi has published information on audit results covering wastewater management, solid-waste management and discharge limits. Its disclosure covers all antibacterial APIs and/or drug products produced at its site in Japan and at supplier sites.
How pharma companies manage antibacterial waste
Many factories around the world are involved in the production of antibacterials, with many based in India and China. If these manufacturing sites do not manage their waste appropriately, the discharge of wastewaters containing active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) into the environment can trigger resistance.
2021: Insights - Appropriate access & stewardship
Improvement in antimicrobial sales practices, especially from generics companies
When sales agents’ bonuses are linked to how much antibacterial and antifungal medicine is sold, this acts as an incentive for these staff to oversell in order to increase their own pay. In 2021, more generic medicine manufacturers are taking action to combat overselling.
Tech transfers are being carried out as isolated, yet valuable, initiatives
To support the development of local manufacturing in low and middle income countries, pharma companies can invest in capacity building and technology transfers. Half of the on-patent vaccines analysed are subject to a technology transfer initiative. Very few initiatives cover any of the 148 medicines analysed.
Most companies support efforts to track resistance
To control the spread of resistance, it is important to track cases and infection rates. Most companies are engaged in surveillance to some extent: all of the eight large research-based companies evaluated, except Otsuka, and three generic medicine manufacturers, Abbott, Cipla and Viatris.
Slow progress on expanding product registrations to low- and middle-income countries
Less wealthy nations often have the highest need for new medicines arriving on the market. Yet only six of the sampled on-patent medicines have been filed in ten or more of the 102 low- and middle-income countries prioritised for this analysis.
Marijn Verhoef
Director of Operations/ Interim Director of Government Engagement & Policy
mverhoef@accesstomedicinefoundation.org
Get in touchThe Generic & Biosimilar Medicines Programme 2023: Company Profiles is the first report to be published by the Access to Medicine Foundation’s Generic & Biosimilars Medicines Programme. It assesses what five major generic and biosimilar medicine manufacturers – Cipla, Hikma, Sun Pharma, Teva, and Viatris – are doing to expand access to their essential products in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Collectively, these five companies have a wide portfolio of essential medicines and a well-established presence in LMICs. Given their portfolios and footprints, the actions of these companies can have a huge impact.
- Cipla Ltd
- Hikma Pharmaceuticals Plc
- Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd
- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd
- Viatris Inc
Insights
The report identifies opportunities for each company to significantly enhance its impact and contribute to improving access to medicine in LMICs, with recommendations tailored to the specific circumstances of each company, as well as its portfolio, geographical reach and size. Standout examples highlight good practice and show possibilities for progress. By extending product registration, fine-tuning access strategies, and adopting pricing strategies that factor in end-users’ ability to pay, companies can enhance their impact. Strengthening supply chains, local manufacturing, and adaptive R&D efforts, such as adapting products for children or warm environments, also offer promising pathways to ensuring access.
How the framework was developed
These five companies are the first to be assessed using the Analytical Framework, which was published in February 2023 as part of the Foundation’s new Generic & Biosimilar Medicines Programme. The framework assesses companies in terms of their individual capability to expand access to medicine within 108 LMICs and relating to 82 diseases and 102 products, with actions analysed across three Research Areas: Expanding access; Supply & quality; and Research & Development.
A rigorous process was undertaken to ensure the assessment criteria were robust and relevant for companies. Proposals were reviewed by an Expert Committee, which provided strategic guidance. Insights were also drawn from a first-of-its kind workshop, which brought together experts working with and within the generic medicine industry, and focused on opportunities to expand access to medicine beyond companies' conventional roles in manufacturing and supplying affordable generic medicines.
The 2023 Analytical Framework for the Generic & Biosimilar Medicines Programme
Read moreNext steps
By design, generic and biosimilar versions of medicines are intended to be more affordable and accessible than the originator product, and there is now an opportunity for companies to go further by leveraging their capacity and expertise to ensure their products reach the people who need them. The standout examples identified in this report span the different research areas assessed by the Framework – including examples of partnerships, solutions, and other ways companies are working on expanding access and availability in LMICs.
Companies can now work to enhance their own efforts to improve access based on the research findings and the Opportunities outlined in their respective Company Profiles. The findings set out in the report also demonstrate where other companies may be able to learn from their peers and adopt similar positive actions, where relevant, to further improve access and make products more available and affordable to people living in LMICs.
