ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2025
The origins of Novo Nordisk and Novartis products: piloting a framework to identify the public contributions.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.