- Celgene Snaps Up Merck & Co.’s Giant Complex in New Jersey 8,200 views
- Top 10 Pipelines 7,466 views
- Annual Report: Top 10 Pipelines 6,000 views
- Top 100 Biotechnology Companies Special Report: The Acquisition Game 2,900 views
The Pulse of the Pharmaceutical Industry
For the pharmaceutical industry, the future is far from smooth, but is now a bit more stable. As the top 50 pharmaceutical companies absorb the losses from patent expirations and rebuild their pipelines, there is growth in the industry, albeit mostly single-digit growth. The industry still needs to navigate the course ahead set by the Affordable Care Act and the entrance of biosimilars to the marketplace. But overall, there are reasons for cautious optimism.
According to the experts at EvaluatePharma, for the first time in the pharmaceutical industry’s history, the consensus forecast of worldwide prescription drug sales is set to exceed $1 trillion dollars, reaching $1.017 trillion by 2020. This means an average growth of 5.1 percent per year from 2013 to 2020. EvaluatePharma has noted an upward revision in annual growth from the 3.8 percent per year, compound annual growth rate from 2012 to 2018, predicted last year, to 4.4 percent growth per year, compound annual growth rate from 2012 to 2018, this year.
“This much improved growth outlook comes as welcome news after two years of actual sales stagnation – the patent cliff is now but a distant memory,” EvaluatePharma experts say.
These experts also maintain that biological products are set to moderate impact of future patent expirations and support growth. From 2014 to 2020, $259 billion of worldwide drug sales are at-risk from patent expirations, but only 46 percent of this is expected to materialize. From 2007 to 2013, there was a 64 percent cannibalization rate. Experts attribute the reduced rate to an increasing proportion of sales deriving from biological products. Because of limited competition from biosimilars even after patent expiry, “It seems future metaphorical patent cliffs are being transformed into much more manageable rolling hills,” EvaluatePharma says.
In addition, 2013 was the best year ever for new drug approvals, EvaluatePharma experts say. The quality of new molecular entities/biologics license applications approved by FDA in 2013 increased by 43 percent versus 2012. Nine of the top 10 are forecast to reach blockbuster status – greater than $1 billion in sales in the United States – five years after launch.
This exceeds 2012, a record-breaking year itself, and marks a boost in innovation and output for the industry from 2009. EvaluatePharma says the drugs approved in 2013 are expected to add more than $24.4 billion to total U.S. prescription drug sales in 2018.
Nine of the drugs approved in 2013 – Sovaldi, Tecfidera, Imbruvica, Kadcyla, Tivicay, AnoroEllipta, BreoEllipta, Invokana and Pomalyst – are each expected to sell more than $1 billion in the United States by 2018.
EvaluatePharma predicts that in 2020, Novartis (see profile on page 52) will achieve the highest worldwide sales of prescription drugs, with total sales of $54.4 billion representing a 5.3 percent share of the total world market.
Sales of the hepatitis C drug Sovaldi and a strong HIV franchise are expected to propel Gilead Sciencesinto the top 10 by 2020, with sales of $23.7 billion. Without any future major acquisitions, Pfizer (see profile on page 58) is expected to fall to fourth place by 2020 with total sales of $48.7 billion, accounting for 4.7 percent of the whole prescription drug market. Biogen Idec is expected to enter the top 20 by 2020, on the strength of its MS drug Tecfidera.
The value of the industry’s R&D pipeline grew 46 percent, compared to 2012, to $418.5 billion, EvaluatePharma experts say. One big area of research for many companies are projects targeting the programmed death-1 (PD-1) pathway. The collective value of these projects is $63.2 billion, with the leading projects being the IgG4 monoclonal antibody nivolumab from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; Merck & Co.’s investigational immune-modulating therapy MK-3475; Roche’s anti-PDL1 antibody RG7446; and AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody MEDI4736.
Merck (see profile on page 48) managed to beat its peers to the PD-1 finish line with MK-3475, or pembrolizumab. In September 2014, the company announced that FDA had granted approval of pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and disease progression following ipilimumab and, if BRAF V600 mutation positive, a BRAF inhibitor. The indication was approved under accelerated approval based on tumor response rate and durability of response. The drug will be marketed as Keytruda. Merck is conducting ongoing Phase II and Phase III clinical studies in advanced melanoma, which are designed to provide further confirmatory evidence for Keytruda in this indication.
Bristol-Myers Squibb (see profile on page 32) released good news about nivolumab in June 2014. A randomized, blinded comparative Phase III study evaluating nivolumab versus dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma was stopped early because an analysis conducted by the independent data monitoring committee showed evidence of superior overall survival in patients receiving nivolumab compared to the control arm. Patients will be unblinded and allowed to cross over to nivolumab.
The trial enrolled 418 patients who were randomized to receive either nivolumab 3 mg/kg every two weeks or DTIC 1000 mg/m2 every three weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and objective response rate.
“The outcome of CheckMate -066 is an important milestone in the field of immuno-oncology as it represents the first well-controlled, randomized Phase III trial of an investigational PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor to demonstrate an overall survival benefit,” says Michael Giordano, MD, head of Oncology Development at Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Roche (see profile on page 62) has been fairly quiet about RG7446. The drug is Phase I trials for solid tumors and with Tarceva for non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR-activating mutations; Phase II trials for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial bladder cancer, metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, and renal cell cancer (with Avastin); and Phase III trials for second-line non-small cell lung cancer. The filings for the Phase II and Phase III indications are expected to occur in 2016.
AstraZeneca(see profile on page 28) has been more open with news about MEDI4736. In May, the company initiated a Phase III immunotherapy study to evaluate progression-free survival and overall survival of the drug compared to placebo in patients with locally advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (Stage III) following completion of treatment with chemoradiotherapy and no evidence of tumor progression. Executives say the PACIFIC trial is the first pivotal study of an immunotherapy in this patient population.
Also in May, AstraZeneca announced a collaboration between MedImmune, the company’s biotechnology arm, and Incyte Corp. The Phase I/II oncology study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of MEDI4736 in combination with Incyte’s oral indoleamine dioxygenase-1 (IDO1) inhibitor, INCB24360.
MEDI4736 blocks the signals that help tumors avoid detection by the immune system, countering the tumor’s immune-evading tactics, while INCB24360 enhances the ability of immune cells to combat the tumor. Preclinical evidence suggests that the combination of these two agents may lead to an enhanced anti-tumor immune response.
Under the terms of the agreement, MedImmune and Incyte will collaborate on a non-exclusive basis on the study, to evaluate the combination in multiple solid tumors including metastatic melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, and pancreatic cancer. The Phase I part of the trial is expected to establish a recommended dose regimen of both MEDI4736 and INCB24360 and the Phase II part of the study will assess the safety and efficacy of the combination. Results from the study will be used to determine whether further clinical development of this combination is warranted. The study will be funded equally by Incyte and MedImmune, and conducted by Incyte.
In July 2014, AstraZeneca announced that it has entered into a clinical study collaboration with Kyowa Hakko Kirin for a Phase I/Ib immuno-oncology study that will evaluate the safety and efficacy of two separate combinations of three investigational compounds in multiple solid tumors.
The study will evaluate MEDI4736 in combination with Kyowa Hakko Kirin’s anti-CCR4 antibody mogamulizumab, and AstraZeneca’s anti-CTLA-4 antibody tremelimumab in combination with mogamulizumab. Both companies will jointly fund the study and Kyowa Hakko Kirin will conduct the study.
AstraZeneca announced another collaboration for MEDI4736 in July, this time between MedImmune and Advaxis Inc.. The Phase I/II immunotherapy study will evaluate the safety and efficacy of MEDI4736 in combination with Advaxis’ lead cancer immunotherapy vaccine, ADXS-HPV, as a treatment for patients with advanced, recurrent or refractory human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cervical cancer and HPV-associated head and neck cancer. Preclinical evidence suggests that the combination of ADXS-HPV with a checkpoint inhibitor, such as MEDI4736, can enhance overall anti-tumor response.
EvaluatePharma experts believe that the percentage of sales from biotechnology products within the world’s top 100 pharma companies is set to increase from 45 percent to 52 percent in 2020. In the broader market, sales from biotechnology products are expected to account for 27 percent of the world’s pharmaceutical sales by 2020, versus 22 percent in 2013.
Roche is expected to remain the biggest player in the biotechnology space with sales increasing by $14.5 billion to $43.5 billion in 2020, representing an annual growth of 6 percent per year.
Bristol-Myers Squibb is forecast to show the strongest growth of 21 percent per year, largely due to nivolumab.
According to EvaluatePharma, worldwide pharmaceutical R&D spend is expected to grow by 2.4 percent per year, in a compound annual growth rate, to $162 billion in 2020.
This contrasts with the compound annual growth rate of 3.4 percent between 2006 and 2013. Over the past 10 years, the pharmaceutical industry invested more than $1.2 trillion in R&D. Novartis will be the biggest R&D spender in 2020, at $10.4 billion, EvaluatePharma experts say.
EvaluatePharma experts say oncology will remain the largest segment in 2020 with forecasts showing an annual growth of 11.2 percent and more than $153 billion sales in 2020. Growth from in-line products, and potential new entrants, is forecast to more than compensate for a number of major patent expirations over the period. Roche is expected to be the largest company in the oncology space through 2020, with 5 percent year-on-year growth between 2013 and 2020. Although Roche’s market share is forecast to fall by 12 percentage points by 2020 to 22.3 percent, total sales are still expected to be more than $34 billion. The leading oncology product in sales in 2020 is predicted to be Roche’s Avastin, at $6.61 billion.
Factor Xa inhibitors Eliquis and Xarelto are expected to drive 10.4 percent annual growth in the anti-coagulant segment and collectively account for $9 billion of new sales in 2020. Patent expirations on key products continue to erode sales from antihyperlipidemics, with this segment falling seven places throughout the period to 2020.
In 2020, Novo Nordisk (see profile on page 56) will remain the dominant player in the diabetes market. EvaluatePharma expects the company to account for more than 30 percent of total sales. Because Bristol-Myers Squibb disposed of its diabetes business to AstraZeneca in 2014, the company is expected to fall out of the top 10. Consequently, AstraZeneca is forecast to be the fifth biggest player by 2020. Johnson & Johnson (see profile on page 40) is expected to climb seven places in 2020, largely due to strong growth from Invokana, which was approved by FDA in March 2013.
The top diabetes product in 2020 is predicted to be Lantus, marketed by Sanofi (see profile on page 65). Sales are projected at $10.52 billion. No. 2 in 2020 is predicted to be Merck’s Januvia and Janumet franchise at $6.9 billion. No. 3 is predicted to be Novo Nordisk’s Victoza, at $4.44 billion in sales. No. 4 is expected to be another Novo Nordisk product, the insulin NovoRapid, at $4.43 billion.
Not on the list is Novo Nordisk’s Xultophy. A combination of Tresiba (insulin degludec, which has been filed for approval in the United States and approved in Europe) and Victoza, the product was granted marketing approval in September by the European Commission. The approval comes after Novo Nordisk shared results from late-stage studies show that Xultophy avoids common side effects for type 2 diabetes while lowering blood sugar levels.
Novo Nordisk will not be filing for approval of Xultophy in the United States any time soon; the company has to provide cardiovascular outcomes data to FDA for Tresiba.
In the antirheumatics market, EvaluatePharma believes that AbbVie will remain the world’s No. 1 player in 2020, with sales of $12.49 billion. The company will account for 22 percent of the entire market. Celgene is expected to make its debut in the top 10 by 2020 following the approval of its phosphodiesterase IV inhibitor, Otezla, in early 2014. Roche’s sales in this segment are forecast to grow at 13 percent per year due to its anti-interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody Actemra, which is predicted to have sales of $2.1 billion. The No. 1 product in 2020 is predicted to be AbbVie’s Humira, which EvaluatePharma expects to have sales of $12.71 billion.
Humira is also predicted to be the No. 1 product in sales among all therapeutic areas in 2020. Even though the drug’s patents start to expire in late 2016, analysts believe that there will be relatively modest sales erosion.
In the vaccines market, EvaluatePharma’s experts believe that Sanofi, with its 50 percent share in Sanofi Pasteur MSD, will be the lead company in 2020 with an estimated $8.81 billion in sales or 21.3 percent of the entire market. No. 2 is expected to be Merck, with its 50 percent share in Sanofi Pasteur MSD, with sales of $8.17 billion. Pfizer is predicted to be the No. 3 company in 2020, with an average 10 percent per year growth largely due to its pneumococcal vaccine Prevnar 13, which is forecast to have sales of $6.08 billion and be the No. 1 product in this sector.
No. 2 in sales is predicted to be Sanofi’s Pentacel, with $2.34 billion.
Gilead is predicted to be the top company in the antivirals market by 2020 at $21.8 billion. EvaluatePharma projects that Gilead will command a 47.8 percent of the market with sales set to increase 13 percent annually between 2013 and 2020. The company’s recently launched hepatitis C product, Sovaldi, is forecast to generate $8.03 billion in sales during 2020. The second best seller in this category in 2020 is projected to be Gilead’s HIV product Stribild, with sales of $4.68 billion.
Future challenges to the pharmaceutical industry will not only be due to patent expirations and R&D difficulties. The implementation of the Affordable Care Act in 2013, with the open enrollment for the ACA’s Marketplace for healthcare insurance, brings a new dynamic to pharmaceutical commercial operations as well as pharmaceutical R&D.
According to Joel Owerbach, Pharm.D., VP, Health Policy & Strategy at Alliance Life Sciences, the new national health insurance marketplace will increasingly link access and coverage to those services and drugs that have proven their value, lower overall health care cost, and demonstrated positive outcomes. Pharma will need to structure its research, clinical studies, contracting, marketing, and operations to meet these new stakeholder requirements and expectations, Owerbach writes in “The New Insurance (Exchange) Marketplace.”
As of April 19, 2014, more than 8 million people signed up for a Marketplace plan with an additional 6 to 7 million enrolled in Medicaid, the majority being previously uninsured. This exceeded the original 6 to 7 million enrollment projections. The Marketplace is poised to grow to more than 24 million members by 2016. Depending on how the current small and large group employer market responds and evolves, it could mean expansion beyond that by tens of millions.
Owerbach says there are about 250 formularies that have been created by more than 275 insurers in the Marketplace. Although these formularies had to meet state-specific essential health benefit standards, there’s a similarity between the 2014 formularies and their commercial counterparts due to a number of factors. The differences in the drug benefit designs show the predominance of four to five tiers, higher deductibles, and higher copay or coinsurance levels compared to commercial benefits.
Some of the factors that are influencing prescription drug purchases under the ACA plan formularies are that out-of-network drug purchases do not count toward deductible or out-of-pocket maximum, or may have a substantially higher set of deductibles that apply; drugs that are prescribed by an out-of-network physician are not covered; brand drugs purchased when a generic is available are not covered; drugs that require prior authorization but are obtained without going through this process are not covered; and non-formulary drugs are not covered.
Because current Marketplace enrollees tend to be lower income, they overwhelmingly selected the lowest cost premium plans available. Eighty-five percent chose bronze and silver, with 60 to 65 percent of that selection being the lowest-cost options available in that region. “We would expect the same type of pharmaceutical purchasing behavior resulting in lower-cost medication choices, generics as the first choice, and lowest out-of-pocket cost brands as distant second choice,” Owerbach writes.
The formulary rules in place for 2014 will continue through 2015. Based on the experiences in the first year, Owerbach believes that there will be continued consolidation in drug classes or categories, with increased access restrictions on branded drugs by shifting them to non-preferred positions and through the use of prior authorization and step therapy programs; additional tiers added to three-tier benefits, causing an increase in the number of benefits with four or even five or more drug tiers; increasing copay and coinsurance levels for all branded and specialty products; and expansion of limited pharmacy networks including retail access restriction as well as an increase in mandatory mail and mandatory specialty networks.
In an interview, Owerbach says pharma’s attitude so far toward the Marketplace has been a wait-and-see one. “I can’t speak to any one pharmaceutical company who is addressing this,” he says. “In my view, what we saw happening in 2013 and coming into 2014 is people sitting down and watching this thing, wondering if it is even going to exist a year from now, so how much energy are they even going to put into this.”
Now that the infrastructure is in place, the Marketplace will be growing, and pharma is beginning to figure out that they should pay attention to it, Owerbach says. His perspective comes from being on the payor side and being directly responsible for creating benefits.
“The Exchanges represent a window on what we’re going to be seeing that will impact 200 million Americans who are in commercial insurance,” Owerbach says. “What we’re seeing created very quickly last year and implemented in 2014, it means understanding this market, and the details of it, and beginning to train and educate employees within pharma in many different areas – government programs, managed markets, etc. – because what we’re seeing within a very small population base will explode and become the norm.”
This is the opportunity for each group within pharma to work together and form the strategy that will allow the industry to succeed in what will be a continually evolving commercial and governmental marketplace in the future, he says.
This goes for the R&D side as well. Owerbach witnessed, on the payor side, input from payors to pharmaceutical R&D organizations earlier on in the development cycle.
There will be the opportunity to enhance and leverage the data collection taking place during clinical studies that will help companies argue the value of their drugs in the market. “To succeed, companies will have to have a very strong and very convincing value proposition,” Owerbach says. “That is really going to be data-driven, and that data needs to emanate early on in the research cycle. So how one designs a research study, and how one collects data … those are the kinds of things that the Marketplace is beginning to accelerate.”
There is going to be increasing emphasis put on what the value of a product is, and those that can prove better healthcare outcomes will have an advantage in the Marketplace, Owerbach says.
He writes, “The Marketplace Exchanges are going to live and be a growing, significant part of the healthcare landscape in the years ahead. This will define the future of all commercial and managed market formularies and benefits. Those benefits, formularies, and pharmaceutical management approaches that are successful within the marketplace plans in 2014-2015 will expand to become the norm across most of the commercial business.”
For pharma, according to Owerbach, the industry will have to hone its strategic and tactical focus. The new rules and compliance requirements will continue to evolve and change at a greater pace than commercial or other managed markets. This will require expanded vigilance and new tools to help track and work with these changes. There will be greater cost control and pricing negotiation expectations on pharma each year in this segment, with spillover potential to the broader commercial market.
The Marketplace will become a significant component of the managed markets segment, with strong ties to Medicaid. But this is an opportunity for the pharmaceutical industry, as the expanded coverage may propel an estimated $26 billion in additional retail drug spend through 2021.
“The Marketplace will increasingly link access and coverage to those services and drugs that have proven their value, lower overall health care cost, and demonstrated positive outcomes,” Owerbach writes. “Pharma will need to structure its research, clinical studies, contracting, marketing, and operations to meet these new stakeholder requirements and expectations.”
Business Segments (Excel Document)
Consolidated Revenue (Excel Document)
Employees (Excel Document)
Healthcare Revenue (Excel Document)
Healthcare R&D Expenditure (Excel Document)
Headquarters and Est. (Excel Document)
Market Capitalization (Excel Document)
Most Profitable (Excel Document)
Net Income (Excel Document)
Shareholder Equity (Excel Document)
Total Assets (Excel Document)
General notes: For this annual special report, which is in its 28th year of publication, Med Ad News editors rank and profile the world’s top 50 companies that generate revenue from healthcare products. Companies that research, develop, manufacture, and sell healthcare products with a strong base in pharmaceuticals are eligible to be included in this special report. As defined by Med Ad News, healthcare products include human prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, generics, imaging agents, medical devices, medical equipment, medical/surgical supplies, raw pharmaceutical chemicals, diagnostics, and animal healthcare products.
To be considered for the top 50 company list, companies must be independent and publicly traded (or make their financials public) and must have the capability to develop, manufacture, and market human prescription therapeutic drugs. The companies must have R&D programs that produce original products. Companies are ranked according to the name of the parent company. All companies are ranked in the main table by their worldwide 2013 healthcare revenue. This number was provided by the companies, unless otherwise noted. Unless otherwise stated, all other data in tables represent the group’s consolidated financial figures.
Although the charts and statistics report financial-statement and balance-sheet figures for 2013 and 2012, the information in the articles is as current as press time allows.
Companies that are new to this year’s ranking are Perrigo at No. 35, Mallinckrodt at No. 48, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at No. 49.
Many companies reported on a calendar-year basis (year ended Dec. 31, 2013). These companies reported on a fiscal-year basis (year ended March 31, 2014): Astellas Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Eisai, Forest Laboratories, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Otsuka Holdings, Shionogi, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Taisho Pharmaceutical, and Takeda Pharmaceutical. The fiscal year for CSL and Perrigo ended June 30, 2014. Mallinckrodt’s fiscal year ended Sept. 27, 2013 (September 2014 financials were not available as this magazine went to press).
Revenue: In tables that rank by revenue, each company is positioned according to worldwide revenue — either by healthcare or consolidated group, depending on the chart. The revenue figures include net sales of healthcare products, and potentially interest, dividends, and other income when provided. Sales from discontinued operations have been included when they were available. In the percent-change column, the figures in parentheses indicate a loss.
Earnings: This number represents the net-income figure that appears in the income statement, after taxes and after nonrecurring and extraordinary charges. The net-income figure is based on the consolidated sales of the group. Figures in parentheses indicate a loss.
Earnings per share: The number for earnings per common share is taken directly from company financial statements. This figure, based on consolidated results of the group, is adjusted for stock splits and stock dividends. Med Ad News editors used the diluted earnings per share figure when provided. Figures in parentheses indicate a loss.
Research and development: In the chart that ranks each top 50 company according to the research and development expenditure of healthcare products, the numbers were provided by the companies. Also provided is each company’s total R&D expenditure (consolidated) for all businesses. For some of the Japanese companies, the healthcare R&D was not provided and thus the consolidated figure was used in its place; in these instances, the difference between the healthcare and consolidated R&D was not a large amount.
Assets: This number represents the company’s year-end total assets.
Shareholders’ equity: This number represents total shareholders’ equity at year-end as reported in the company’s balance-sheet statement, and is for the group.
Employees: This number represents the total number of employees for the year.
Market capitalization: The information that appears in this chart shows the market capitalization of companies. The information came from Yahoo! Finance, Google Finance, and other sources and reflects company market capitalization as of Sept. 18, 2014.
Exchange rates: For non-U.S. companies reporting in foreign currency, Med Ad News editors used exchange rates to convert income-statement and balance-sheet figures to U.S. dollars. The conversions have been made for the purpose of convenience and comparison only. Med Ad News editors used average exchange rates to calculate income-statement figures and balance-statement figures. The exchange rates are based on data made available by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board (federalreserve.gov) and certain company documents. Unless otherwise indicated, the editors used the average 2013 exchange rates. So that the percent change in financial-statement and balance-sheet information reflects the actual increase or decrease in the company’s home-country currency, the editors used a constant rate of exchange for 2013 and 2012. This reflects the increase or decrease actually reported by the non-U.S. company. The same exchange rate was used for the income-statement and the balance-sheet figures.
For the companies that report in euros, Med Ad News translated U.S. dollar amounts from euros at the rate of €1.00 to $1.3281, the average rate of exchange in 2013. The top 50 companies that reported in euros were: Bayer, BoehringerIngelheim, Grifols, Merck KGaA, Sanofi, Stada, and UCB.
For the companies that report in yen, Med Ad News translated U.S. dollar amounts from yen at the March 2014 rate of ¥102.3395 to $1.00, except for Chugai and Kyowa Hakko Kirin, whose numbers were translated at the 2013 average rate of ¥97.60 to $1.00. The top 50 companies that reported in yen were: Astellas, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Dainippon Sumitomo, Eisai, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Otsuka, Shionogi, Taisho, and Takeda.
For the company that reports in pounds sterling, Med Ad News translated U.S. dollar amounts from pounds sterling at the rate of £1.00 to $1.5642, the average rate of exchange in 2013. The top 50 company that reported in pounds sterling was GlaxoSmithKline.
For the company that reports in Swiss francs, Med Ad News translated U.S. dollar amounts from Swiss francs at the rate of SFr0.9269 to $1.00, the average rate of exchange in 2013. The top 50 company that reported in Swiss francs was Roche.
For the companies that report in Danish kroner, Med Ad News translated U.S. dollar amounts from the kroner at the rate of DKr5.6170 to $1.00, the average rate of exchange in 2013. The top 50 companies that reported in Danish kroner were Novo Nordisk and Lundbeck.
For the company that reports in Indian rupees, Med Ad News translated U.S. dollar amounts from the rupee at the rate of Rs60.9476 to $1.00. The top 50 company that reported in Indian rupees was Sun Pharmaceutical Industries.
For the company that reported in Swedish kronor, Med Ad News translated U.S. dollar amounts from the kroner at the rate of SKr6.4114 to $1.00. The top 50 company that reported in Swedish kronor was Meda.
The criteria for selecting the company of the year are based on a model developed by the editors of Med Ad News. Each one of the top 50 companies is evaluated on a number of categories, including:
2013: Novo Nordisk
2012:Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
2005: Johnson & Johnson
1999: Eli Lilly
1996: Abbott Laboratories
1994: SmithKline Beecham
Sorry. No data so far.