**: Pharmaceutical Intelligence Headlines***
Photo.com.
In the past decade, the global pharmaceutical industry has experienced a trough and a brilliant future, both of which have benefited the MNC pharmaceutical companies a lot. In the process, there are many dark horse companies that have risen strongly, and there is no lack of strong Hengqiang, and there are always one or two "protagonists" of MNC pharmaceutical companies in different time periods to gather global attention, but they are as fleeting as fashion.
If we can stand in the grand perspective of God, it often means that we can see the problem more clearly, then behind the changes in the market value and revenue ranking of multinational companies in the past ten years, we may be able to see many unknown rules, and these rules may also help more Chinese pharmaceutical companies not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
The new king and the old king
The market value and revenue of MNC have changed in ten years
Eli Lilly: Hold on to GLP-1 and rise to the top of the new king
In 2015, Eli Lilly debuted in the top 15 of MNC's market capitalization, with 927The market value of 900 million US dollars is only the "second-to-last" existence, and on top of it are not only old pharmaceutical companies such as Johnson & Johnson, Roche, and Pfizer, but even the market value of Gilead, BMS, and AbbVie.
From 2020 to the present, Eli Lilly's market value has more than quadrupled in four years, soaring from $120 billion to more than $500 billion today, and will top the market capitalization ranking of MNC in 2023, opening a gap of nearly $100 billion with the second place Novo Nordisk, which is equivalent to 2 Merck, 3 Pfizer, and 6 Regeneron.
And all this success is inherent in the hot contributions of many frontier fields such as GLP-1 and new drugs for Alzheimer's disease, but it has always adhered to the layout of pure drug research and development, fully implemented "pragmatism", not obsessed with "first in class", and the overall strategy of combining "following strategy" and "source innovation in subdivided fields" may be the key.
It is important to know that among the series of innovative drugs launched by Eli Lilly in the past that have been successfully commercialized, Eli Lilly's products are often not the fastest to market in that time period, but the final result is that they always catch up and have a place in key areas, such as GLP-1, IL-23 and other targets (not all).
For example, although Novo Nordisk, as a pioneer in the field, liraglutide was also launched in 2009, in fact, Eli Lilly took the lead in laying out the long-acting GLP-1 drug dulaglutide in 2014 and found an alternative opportunity; As a result, in 2017, when Novo Nordisk's revolutionary GLP-1 semaglutide was launched, its long-term advantage lagged behind.
This kind of latecomer scenario is the result of Eli Lilly's close combination of "pragmatism" and clinical needs, and it is also the key to Eli Lilly's current topping of the market capitalization list of MNC.
But at the same time, as a domestic company, it is not advisable to simply imitate Eli Lilly's "fast-follow" as the secret of success, and in that era of low innovation intensity, "follow strategy" has always been only a product of its fixed era, and now the times are different.
Perhaps, it is preferable to attribute Eli Lilly's current success to its persistence in the field of chronic diseases, and actively follow suit, from insulin to GLP-1, from Prozac to donanemab, without precipitation in the field, how can it be caused by the "follow strategy" and combine pragmatism with source innovation to have a future?
BMS: Strategic Mistakes Under Market Cap**
In contrast to Eli Lilly's market capitalization ranking year after year**, BMS's market capitalization ranking shows a completely opposite situation.
Although BMS is not in the industry where the old king and the new king have changed, when it comes to its ups and downs in the past ten years, it is far more convincing than Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and other companies.
At the end of 2019, the market value of BMS reached a historical high, and the market value of MNC ranked sixth, and at that time, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, and AstraZeneca were all ranked below, which shows its high spirits.
At the end of 2021, BMS fell to the last place in the top 10 of the market capitalization of MNC (multinational pharmaceutical companies), during which Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk rose and were successfully overtaken by four pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie and AstraZeneca, and their position was no longer guaranteed.
At the end of 2023, BMS was unsurprisingly squeezed out of the top 10 ranks of MNC market capitalization, ranking 13th, with a market value hovering around $100 billion for a long time.
The reason why the market value of BMS fluctuates so much is not simply caused by one or two hot news, but more because of its various confusing behaviors over the years.
In 2014, it became the world's first approved PD-1 product (Japan), and its market value soared by 13 times, the sales volume of O drug in 2016 is 2 of Merck's K drug7 times more. But looking back at the present, the sales volume of O drug in 2023 is even less than 1 3 of K medicine, why is this?
Comparing the strategic layout of BMS and Merck on the two PD-1s, BMS has two relatively big mistakes in the process:
1.First of all, in terms of the advancement of indications, the overall consideration of BMS is obviously insufficient.
In 2016, drug O made a major mistake in tackling the indication of non-small cell lung cancer, due to the hope of covering more patients, not limiting the expression level of PD-L1, and increasing the PD-L1 screening procedure, which ultimately failed to meet the clinical endpoint.
At this point, K drug began to take off, and its sales in 2018 surpassed that of O drug, and in 2021, NSCLC sales reached 9.9 billion US dollars, accounting for 57 percent of the entire K drug sales6%。In 2022, nearly 40 indications for K drugs and 24 O drugs were approved worldwide. In the first three quarters of 2023, the sales volume of K drug was 1840.3 billion US dollars, there is no suspense in winning the annual global drug king.
2.Secondly, in the layout of the combination of drugs, BMS is always a beat slower.
In terms of the scene, BMS always seems to be looking forward to a subversive way, and chooses to combine with Y drug to form a double immunity, hoping to create a chemotherapy-free era and completely change the existing cancer pattern.
On the contrary, Merck resolutely chose to combine drug K with traditional chemotherapy, and the first-line non-squamous and squamous NSCLC has been approved by the FDA, so far, Merck has basically firmly occupied the important market of non-small cell lung cancer. More critically, when BMS switched to promoting the regimen of drug O + chemotherapy, Merck had begun to sweep the ADC pipeline globally, trying to continue to extend the life cycle of drug K through ADC.
It's obviously a good hand, but under the operation of several hands in a row, it has become a disadvantage, which makes people always feel that it is slow down everywhere.
Although BMS has also begun to deploy the ADC pipeline globally, trying to change its current outcome with the combination of ADC in time, the CEO of BMS also said that his company's pipeline has never been so rich at the JPM conference not long ago, and that in the next 6 years, BMS will launch more than 16 new products, which will also become the main driver of BMS's performance growth in the next 10 years.
Investors who have suffered two losses can still buy it, which is already a big problem in itself, and the loss of investor trust may be the fundamental reason for the passive situation of BMS.
Changes in revenue
The MNC is trying to create the "next outlet".
1.Pfizer: The scenery is no more
If you want to say that the most beautiful company in the three years of the new crown, it must only be Pfizer; But at the same time, when it comes to the worst company after the new crown, it can only be Pfizer.
In 2021, the high-profile COVID vaccine Comirnaty had a total revenue of $36.8 billion. Humirla, which defeated AbbVie, occupied the throne of the new "King of Medicine", and the company's overall revenue was 81.3 billion US dollars, a year-on-year increase of 92%. Pfizer, which tasted the sweetness of the new crown, did not limit itself to Paxlovid under the market perception of "new crown normalization" at that time, but chose to further develop a number of new crown-related products and next-generation antiviral drug candidates.
In 2022, Pfizer's annual report for the new year will be announced, with revenue of US$100.3 billion, a year-on-year increase of 23%, which is not only the highest record since Pfizer established its factory, but also the highest record in the entire pharmaceutical industry; The net profit was about 313$7.2 billion, a year-on-year increase of 43%.
In 2023, despite the psychological preparations, Pfizer's latest annual report data still surprised most people, and the decline in new crown products was far beyond expectations, with Pfizer's new crown vaccine Comirnaty and ** drug Paxlovid revenue plummeting to 112 respectively$ 2 billion and 12$7.9 billion, down 70% and 92%, respectively, accounting for 21% of Pfizer's total revenue. In addition, Pfizer's other new crown research projects are also expected to run aground with a high probability, and their real losses may be more staggering than those in the financial report.
Corporate announcements, pharmaceutical intelligence data, etc.
Looking back at that time, Pfizer rode the wind one day and soared to 90,000 miles, but now it is no longer beautiful, it is really a pity, in the face of a large number of returns around the world, Pfizer may not have a good time for a long time after that!
2.Novartis: Bet on RDC
To a certain extent, Novartis is indeed a very special existence in the MNC enterprises, when companies have invested heavily in ADC, GLP-1 track, and completed several huge transactions, Novartis is particularly different, not rolling PD-1, not touching ADC, not squeezing GLP-1.
At the same time, on the other hand, in order to complete the concept of "pure innovative pharmaceutical company", it has continuously simplified the organization and focused on its core business over the years
In 2019, Novartis spun off Alcon and became an independent company, thus further focusing on the field of innovative drugs.
In 2021, Novartis sold its entire stake in Roche for $20.7 billion**;
In 2022, projects for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were abandoned;
In 2022, Novartis Pharmaceuticals started with 1$7.5 billion** to Harrow Health** a group of ophthalmic drugs;
In 2023, Sandoz, the generic drug business, will be divested to become an innovative pharmaceutical company in the true sense;
Corporate announcements, pharmaceutical intelligence data, etc.
So far, although Novartis' revenue has not increased but declined in the past ten years, and it is also one of the few companies with negative revenue growth, after a series of strategic adjustments, Novartis' unique strategy has gradually become prominent in terms of organizational composition and business segmentation.
Among Novartis' main sales growth products in 2023, in addition to the previous varieties such as Entresto (+31%) and Kesimpta (+99%), the sales data of new varieties such as Pluvicto that have appeared in the past two years have also changed dramatically. are nuclear drugs).
Corporate announcements, pharmaceutical intelligence data, etc.
But at the same time, Novartis' strategic dilemmas do exist, such as the shrinking of the generic drug business, and Sandoz's revenue has been declining for many years; Existing products are facing a patent cliff, and several blockbuster drugs will lose exclusive market rights in the next five years; There is a lack of explosive products, and there is no super blockbuster product with sales of more than $5 billion, which is far behind other pharmaceutical giants.
Today, being the first to seize the opportunities in the field of nuclear medicine is even more critical for Novartis.
Summary
In terms of data, whether it is market capitalization or revenue, there is indeed no MNC company that can always stand at the top, and no company will always be at the bottom.
No one can guarantee who the next pharmaceutical decade will belong to, and often a seemingly ordinary decision may achieve a new generation of medicine kings, or may make today's medicine kings step down from the altar, and it is not easy to create their own competitive barriers like some mnc pharmaceutical companies.
Disclaimer: This article is the content of Yaozhi.com**, and the copyright of the text belongs to the original author, which is intended to convey more information and does not represent the position of Yaozhi.com. If it involves the content of the work, copyright and other issues, please leave a message on this platform, and we will delete it as soon as possible.