€¦ · CONTENTS 1 Executive summary 13 Patient-group relationships with pharma, 2019 16...

THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF PHARMA IN 2019

THE PATIENT PERSPECTIVE—GLOBAL EDITION THE VIEWS OF 1,850 PATIENT GROUPS

P

UB

LIS

HE

D A

PR

IL 2

020

CONTENTS

1 Executive summary

13 Patient-group relationships with pharma, 2019

16 Industry-wide findings, 2019

21 Rankings of the 48 pharma companies, 2019 (v. 2018)

among patient groups familiar with the companies

36 Rankings of the 48 pharma companies, 2019 (v. 2018)

among patient groups that work with the companies

51 Profiles of the 48 companies, 2019 (v. 2018)

APPENDICES I Profiles of respondent patient groups, 2019

II Methodology III What 8 pharmaceutical companies say about their patient-oriented activities, 2019/2020 [separate supplement]

TABLES AND CHARTS

2 The key therapy areas of the 2019 respondent patient groups

3 The geographic spread of the 2019 respondent patient groups

3 Corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2011-2019 (percentage of respondent patient groups

stating “Excellent” or “Good”)

3 Corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2019—by country (percentage of respondent patient

groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”) [figure in brackets equals number of respondent patient groups]

4 Percentage change in the corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2019 v. 2018—by country

(respondent patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”) [figure in brackets equals number of respondent

patient groups]

5 Percentage of respondent patient groups stating that the pharmaceutical industry was “Excellent” or “Good”

at being patient centric, 2019—by country [figure in brackets equals number of respondent patient groups]

5 Percentage of respondent patient groups stating that the pharmaceutical industry was “Excellent” or “Good”

at ensuring access to medicines, 2019—by country [figure in brackets equals number of respondent patient

groups]

6 Percentage of respondent patient groups stating that pharma was “Excellent” or “Good” at having fair pricing

policies, 2019

8 Companies’ respective increases in overall rankings in PatientView’s ‘Corporate-Reputation’ league table,

2019 v. 2018—according to respondent patient groups that are familiar, and which work, with the company

9 Percentage of respondent patient groups that stated “None” or “They did not know” any company that was

“Best” at an activity, 2019

9 Overall rankings of individual pharma companies among patient groups familiar with the company, 2019 v.

2018—ordered high to low

10 Companies’ NPS scores, 2019—according to respondent patient groups that work with the company;

ordered high to low

12 The rankings of 14 ‘big-pharma’ companies at corporate reputation, 2019 v. 2018—according to respondent

patient groups familiar with the companies

12 The rankings of 14 ‘big-pharma’ companies at corporate reputation, 2019 v. 2018—according to respondent

patient groups that work with the companies

14 Patient groups: familiarity, and partnerships, with pharma companies, 2019 (according to respondent patient

groups)

15 The types of working relationships that respondent patient groups have with pharma companies, 2019

17 The corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2019 v. 2018—compared with that of 8 other

healthcare sectors—according to respondent patient groups

17 The corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry, 2011-2019—according to respondent patient groups

18 The perceived effectiveness of the pharmaceutical industry at carrying out specific activities, 2010 v. 2019—according to respondent patient groups

19 Perceptions of the efficacy of the pharmaceutical industry at various activities of importance to patient groups, 2019 v. previous years—according to respondent patient groups

21 Rankings of individual pharma companies, 2019 v. 2018—according to respondent patient groups familiar with the company

36 Rankings of individual pharma companies, 2019 v. 2018—according to respondent patient groups that work or partner with the company

TABLES AND CHARTS, continued

51 Profiles of the 48 companies, 2019

CHARTS AND TABLES FOR EACH OF THE 48 COMPANIES:

Number of respondent patient groups claiming familiarity with the company, 2019.

Number of respondent patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with the company, 2019.

Profile of respondent patient groups familiar with the company, 2019: country headquarters; specialties; geographic remit; and types of relationships.

Company scores among respondent patient groups familiar with the company, and which worked with the company, for each of the 12 indicators of corporate reputation, 2019.

Percentage of the respondent patient groups that worked with the company, but which also worked with other companies, 2019.

Overall rankings for the company according to respondent patient groups familiar with the company, 2019 v. 2018.

Overall rankings for the company according to respondent patient groups that work with the company, 2019 v. 2018.

Company rankings for each of the 12 indicators according to respondent patient groups familiar, or working, with the company, 2019 v. 2018.

Overall rankings among respondent patient groups familiar with the company, 2015-2019.

Snapshot view: where the company sits in the corporate tiers for each of the 12 indicators (in the higher, the middle, or the lower tier), as assessed by respondent patient groups familiar with the company, 2019.

Snapshot view: where the company sits in the corporate tiers for each of the 12 indicators (in the higher, the middle, or the lower tier), as assessed by respondent patient groups that work with the company, 2019.

The company’s Net Promoter Score, 2019.

The company’s Net Promoter Score, 2017-2019.

TABLES AND CHARTS, continued

COMPANY PAGE AbbVie 54

Acorda Therapeutics 56

Allergan 58

Almirall 60

Amgen 62

Astellas Pharma 64

AstraZeneca 66

Bayer 68

Bial 70

Biogen 72

Boehringer Ingelheim 74

Bristol Myers Squibb 76

Celgene 78

Chiesi Farmaceutici 80

CSL Behring 82

Daiichi Sankyo 84

Eisai 86

Eli Lilly 88

Ferring 90

Gedeon Richter 92

Gilead Sciences (including Kite Pharma) 94

Grifols 96

Grünenthal 98

GSK 100

Ipsen 102

Janssen 104

LEO Pharma 106

Lundbeck 108

Menarini 110

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 112

Merck & Co/MSD 114

Mundipharma 116

Novartis 118

Novo Nordisk 120

Octapharma 122

Otsuka 124

Pierre Fabre Laboratories 126

Pfizer 128

Roche (Genentech, US; Chugai, Japan)) 130

Sandoz 132

Sanofi 134

Servier 136

Takeda (including Shire) 138

Teva 140

UCB 142

Vertex Pharmaceuticals 144

Vifor Pharma 146

ViiV Healthcare 148

© PatientView, April 2020

PA

GE

1

PatientView’s ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from a Patient Perspective’, 2019

Global edition

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1


PA

GE

2


Global edition

We are pleased to publish the overall global results of

the 2019 (9th) edition of the ‘Corporate Reputation of

Pharma—from the Perspective of Patient Groups’.

Included in this Global review are the results of two

surveys:

A November 2019-February 2020 survey of 1,850

patient groups worldwide [for Methodology, see

Appendix II at the end of this document].

A December 2019-March 2020 survey of pharma

companies about their activities in patient centricity

and patient-group relations during 2019 (and looking

ahead through 2020). The responses from eight

companies can be found in a separate document.

A note about COVID-19 COVID-19 should have little impact on the results of

the PatientView 2019 ‘Corporate-Reputation’ study,

due to the timing of the survey (November 2019-

February 2020), largely before the crisis became

global. Only the opinions of the 15 respondent China-

based patient groups may have been influenced by

the epidemic.

COVID-19 is already creating greater public

awareness of the pharmaceutical industry. On the one

hand, the industry’s scientific abilities are being

applauded. On the other hand, drug companies have

come under pressure to reduce prices during the

pandemic. The 2019 ‘Corporate-Reputation’ results

can therefore serve as a platform to assist pharma in

its corporate-reputation strategies, in the context of the

COVID-19 crisis, and thereafter.

ABOUT THE RESPONDENTS 1,850 patient groups worldwide responded to the 2019

‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma’ survey—the highest

response rate in the survey’s nine-year history. These

respondent patient groups specialised in 124 therapy

areas (predominately autoimmune diseases; cancer;

endocrine conditions; HIV/AIDS; mental-health

conditions; neurological disorders; rare diseases; and

respiratory diseases).

———————————————————————

Key therapy areas of 2019’s respondent patient groups

Autoimmune includes: arthritis; atopic dermatitis/eczema; coeliac; Crohn’s and colitis; lupus; psoriasis; and scleroderma.

Cancer includes: bladder; blood; brain; breast; children’s/young people's; digestive; head and neck; kidney; lung; men's; ovarian; pancreatic; prostate; rare; skin; thyroid; and women’s.

Circulatory includes: heart; heart/lung; hypertension; thrombosis; and stroke.

Endocrine includes: adrenal; diabetes; thyroid; and pituitary.

Mental health includes: ADD/ADHD; addiction; anxiety; bipolar disorder; depression; and schizophrenia.

Neurological includes: ataxia; brain injuries/disorders; dementia/memory disorders; epilepsy; fibromyalgia; migraine/other headache disorders; multiple sclerosis; pain; and Parkinson’s.

Respiratory includes: allergy; asthma; COPD; cystic fibrosis; pulmonary fibrosis; and pulmonary hypertension.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


PA

GE

3


Global edition

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The geographic spread of 2019’s respondent patient

groups (Respondent patient groups were headquartered in

the countries coloured dark green)

The respondent patient groups were headquartered in

95 different countries.

Levels of corporate partnership

67% (1,234) of the 1,850 respondent patient groups

worked with at least one pharmaceutical company.

INDUSTRY-WIDE FINDINGS

Respondent patient-groups’ views of the pharma

industry in 2019—compared with previous years

Patient groups responding to the 2019 ‘Corporate-

Reputation’ survey rated the corporate reputation of

the pharma industry more favourably than

respondents in previous years. 46% of 2019’s

respondent patient groups stated that the

pharmaceutical industry had an “Excellent” or “Good”

corporate reputation—the highest score reached by

pharma in the nine years that PatientView has

conducted the ‘Corporate-Reputation’ survey.

Strikingly, the pharmaceutical industry was also

ranked 1st in 2019 for corporate reputation out of nine

healthcare sectors—again, another first.

Corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry,

2011-2019 (Percentage of respondent patient groups stating

“Excellent” or “Good”)

I. Corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry,

2019—by country (Percentage of respondent patient

groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”) [Figure in brackets

equals number of respondent patient groups]


PA

GE

4


Global edition

II. Corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry,

2019 v. 2018—by country (Percentage change by

respondent patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”)

[Figure in brackets equals

number of respondent patient groups]

However, patient-group attitudes do vary widely

worldwide. The pharma industry’s corporate reputation

was highest in 2019 among patient groups in Greece,

Latin-American countries, Turkey, China, and Poland

[see country chart I, on the previous page]. The

largest improvements in pharma’s corporate

reputation were seen in Greece, Latin-American

countries, Portugal, and Canada [see country chart II,

above]. By contrast, only 13% of 2019’s 16

respondent patient groups from Ireland described the

industry as having an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate

reputation—the lowest score worldwide—a 25% drop

compared with 2018.

Respondent patient groups’ views of pharma’s

activities, 2019—compared with previous years

For the most part, 2019’s respondent patient groups

indicated that pharma improved in its activities of

importance to patients [for full details, see pages 19-

20]. The pharmaceutical industry’s performance

reached a high point in three instances:

42% of 2019’s respondent patient groups thought

the pharma industry to be “Excellent” or “Good” in

its relationships with patient groups. The lowest

figure for this activity was 34%, in 2016.

37% of 2019’s respondent patient groups believed

pharma “Excellent” or “Good” at being patient

centric. The lowest figure for this activity was 26%

in 2016.

30% of 2019’s respondent patient groups believed

pharma “Excellent” or “Good” at providing services

‘beyond the pill’. The industry’s lowest point for

this activity—20%—was also in 2016.

As the chart on the next page shows, 2019’s

respondent patient groups demonstrate evident

geographic differences in their assessment of the

industry’s level of patient centricity. In 2019, as many

as 76% of the 22 respondent Serbian patient groups

stated that pharma was “Excellent” or “Good” at this

activity, but only 20% of the 71 respondent Norwegian

patient groups said the same.

The 2019 survey was the first in which PatientView

asked respondent patient groups about the

effectiveness of pharma in actively helping patients

gain access to medicines. Only 26% of 2019’s

respondent patient groups stated that the industry was

“Excellent” or “Good” at this activity. Again, though,

the per-country results for this question varied widely.

As many as 65% of the respondent Serbian patient

groups believed pharma “Excellent” or “Good” at

ensuring patient access to medicines, while only 8%

of respondent patient groups from the Netherlands

said the same [see chart on next page].

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


PA

GE

5


Global edition

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

———————————————————————

Percentage of respondent patient groups stating that

the pharmaceutical industry was “Excellent” or “Good”

at being patient centric, 2019—by country [Figure in

brackets equals number of respondent patient groups]

———————————————————————

Percentage of respondent patient groups stating that

the pharmaceutical industry was “Excellent” or “Good”

at ensuring patient access to medicines, 2019—by

country [Figure in brackets equals number of respondent

patient groups]


PA

GE

6


Global edition

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As in previous surveys, 2019’s respondent patient

groups identified the pharma-industry activities most

in need of improvement—chief of them was fair

pricing policies. Only 10% of 2019’s respondent

patient groups stated that pharma as a whole was

“Excellent” or “Good” at having fair pricing policies (up

fractionally on the 9% of 2018, but down on the 15%

in 2015).

FINDINGS FOR INDIVIDUAL

COMPANIES

The companies most familiar to patient groups

The number/percentage of patient groups claiming

familiarity with each individual pharma company gives

an idea of the company’s corporate brand awareness

within the patient community. Familiarity is defined in

the questionnaire as: “Feeling knowledgeable enough

about the company to be able to comment on its

activities and products.”

By this criterion, Pfizer was the company best known

in 2019 among patient organisations—with as many

as 1,236 of the 1,850 respondent patient groups

claiming familiarity with Pfizer (a figure in line with

most previous years, except 2018, when Novartis

ranked as most familiar to patient groups).

However, the 2019 survey did find that Novartis had

the largest number of respondent patient-group

partners—at 511. The equivalent figure for Pfizer was

508.

The 48 companies included for assessment in the

2019 survey (in alphabetical order):

AbbVie | Acorda Therapeutics | Allergan | Almirall |

Amgen | Astellas Pharma | AstraZeneca | Bayer | Bial |

Biogen | Boehringer Ingelheim | Bristol Myers Squibb |

Celgene* | Chiesi Farmaceutici | CSL Behring | Daiichi

Sankyo | Eisai | Eli Lilly | Ferring | Gedeon Richter |

Gilead Sciences (including Kite Pharma) | Grifols |

Grünenthal | GSK | Ipsen | Janssen (Pharmaceutical

Companies of Johnson & Johnson) | LEO Pharma |

Lundbeck | Menarini | Merck KGaA/EMD Serono | Merck

& Co (MSD outside Canada and the US) | Mundipharma

| Novartis | Novo Nordisk | Octapharma | Otsuka | Pfizer |

Pierre Fabre Laboratories | Roche (Chugai in Japan;

Genentech in the USA) | Sandoz | Sanofi | Servier |

Takeda (including its 2018-2019 acquisition, Shire) |

Teva | UCB | Vertex | Vifor | ViiV Healthcare.

* Celgene was included as a separate entity, as the

company’s acquisition by Bristol Myers Squibb was only

completed in November 2019, and the survey is

intended to reflect the views of patient groups in 2019.

Percentage of respondent patient

groups stating that pharma was

“Excellent” or “Good” at having fair

pricing policies, 2019

Note: this question was not asked in the 2017

survey


PA

GE

7


Global edition

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The types of relationship that respondent patient

groups have with individual pharma companies

[see page 15 for full details]

1,234 (67%) of 2019’s 1,850 respondent patient

groups stated that they worked with at least one

company.

The most-common type of relationship for these

1,234 patient groups was receiving support from a

company for a specific project run by the patient

group—mentioned by 59% of the 1,234 (a

significantly-higher percentage than the equivalent

of 2018, when 37% of patient groups which worked

with at least one company said the same).

Despite the importance attached to patient

engagement in drug research and development by

patients, regulators, and other parts of the

healthcare sector, only 11% of the 2019 respondent

patient groups stated that they had been engaged

with pharma’s clinical research, and just 10% said

that they were engaged with pharmaceutical

companies in R&D processes, post-clinical trials.

These numbers are a marginal increase on those

reported in 2018.

Corporate-Reputation rankings in 2019, out of 48

companies

1st: ViiV Healthcare

In 2019, ViiV Healthcare ranked overall 1st for

corporate reputation, according to the 205 respondent

patient groups claiming familiarity with ViiV. The

company was also ranked overall 1st by its 103

patient-group partners. ViiV has retained these 1st-

place positions since 2013, when the company was

first included in the PatientView ‘Corporate-

Reputation’ survey.

2nd: Roche

In 2019, Roche (represented by Chugai in Japan, and

by Genentech in the US) ranked overall 2nd for

corporate reputation, according to the 1,155 patient

groups claiming familiarity with it (in 2018, Roche was

ranked 6th by patient groups familiar with it). In 2019,

Roche was ranked 2nd by its 503 patient-group

partners (up from 4th in 2018). Such rises in the

rankings are particularly impressive for any large,

multinational, multi-therapy company. Roche’s 2019

overall rankings are the company’s highest in the nine

years that PatientView has been running its

‘Corporate-Reputation’ survey.

3rd: AbbVie

In 2019, AbbVie was ranked overall 3rd for corporate

reputation, according to the 708 patient groups

claiming familiarity with it (up from overall 5th in 2018,

when the company was negatively affected by the

loss of patent on its leading product, Humira, in

Europe). AbbVie was also ranked 3rd in 2019 by its

338 patient-group partners (up two places from 5th in

2018). AbbVie’s corporate reputation appears to have

recovered from its patent-loss setback, at least from

the perspective of the patient groups commenting on

the company.

The companies in the ‘top tier’ of the Corporate-

Reputation ranking

As in 2018, each company is allocated into one of

three overall tiers of corporate reputation (top tier—

green; middle tier—yellow; and lower tier—red),

according to its performance for each of the 12

indicators of corporate reputation, as judged by

patient groups familiar, and which work, with each

company.


PA

GE

8


Global edition

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2019, just seven companies reached the overall top

tier for all indicators of corporate reputation.

Alphabetically ordered:

AbbVie (ranked overall 3rd in 2019).

Boehringer Ingelheim (ranked overall 11th in

2019; this is the first time that Boehringer has

ranked in the top tier for all indicators).

Janssen (7th).

Novartis (4th).

Pfizer (6th).

Roche (2nd). And ...

ViiV (1st).

Rising stars

A number of companies made significant rises up the

rankings, 2018-2019 [see chart, right].

AstraZeneca made the largest jump in overall

rankings for corporate reputation. In 2019, the

company ranked 13th out of 48 companies, according

to the 805 patient groups familiar with the company—

an increase of 16 places on its 2018 rank of 29th.

AstraZeneca’s 258 patient-group partners ranked the

company 10th, a rise of 25 places from 2018.

CSL Behring rose 15 places in the Corporate-

Reputation rankings, 2018-2019. The 226 patient

groups familiar with CSL Behring ranked the company

17th in 2019, compared with 32nd in 2018. CSL

Behring also improved its corporate reputation by 5

ranks, 2018-2019, according to its 61 patient-group

partners—overall 13th in 2019, from 17th in 2018.

Significant increases in the ‘Corporate-Reputation’

rankings were also reported by the patient-group

partners of Grifols and Merck KGaA. Grifols reached

overall 27th in 2019 (up from 40th in 2018). Merck

KGaA reached overall 22nd in 2019 (up from 33rd in

2018).

Biggest increases in overall rankings in the PatientView

Corporate-Reputation league table, 2018-2019—according

to (1) patient groups familiar with the company (2) patient

groups that work with the company (Number in green is the

increase in ranking according to patient groups familiar with

the company. Number in orange is the increase in ranking

according to patient groups which work with the company)


PA

GE

9


Global edition

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Steady climbers

Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb,

Sanofi, and Servier continued to sustain the slow, but

steady, annual climb in overall rankings made by

these companies during the last few years.

Large changes in ranking

Typically, companies move up and down the rankings

in small steps, but exceptions can occur. The 2019

‘Corporate-Reputation’ survey found that Chiesi

Farmaceutici was ranked 3rd in 2019 by its 36

patient-group partners for transparency in product

pricing (up from 42nd in 2018). Part of the reason why

such a big increase was possible is that only a

relatively small number of respondent patient groups

will nominate any company as “Best’” for this activity.

As many as 61% of respondent patient groups stated

either “None” or “They did now know” of any

companies listed that could be considered “Best” at

transparency in product pricing. Thus, only a few

additional nominations by patient groups can have a

profound effect on the ranking of a company for this

indicator of corporate reputation.

Patient centricity 19%

Patient information 27%

Patient safety 41%

High quality products 26%

Transparency: pricing policies 61%

Transparency: results of clinical trials 55%

Transparency: funding of external stakeholders 57%

Integrity 44%

Quality of patient-group relationships 24%

'Beyond the pill' 37%

Engaging patients in research 57%

Engaging patients in development 61%

Percentage of respondent patient groups that stated

“None” or “They did not know” any company that

was “Best” at an activity, 2019

Ran

k 2

019

Ran

k 2

018

Diffe

ren

ce

ViiV Healthcare 1 1 0

Roche/Genentech 2 6 +4

AbbVie 3 5 +2

Novartis 4 4 0

Gilead 5 2 -3

Pfizer 6 9 +3

Janssen 7 3 -4

Takeda/Shire 8 7 -1

Sanofi 9 10 +1

Novo Nordisk 10 11 +1

Boehringer Ingelheim 11 15 +4

GSK 12 13 +1

AstraZeneca 13 29 +16

Merck & Co/MSD 14 23 +9

Lundbeck 15 12 -3

UCB 16 8 -8

CSL Behring 17 32 +15

Eli Lilly 18 14 -4

Bayer 19 18 -1

Octapharma 20 34 +14

Biogen 21 17 -4

Bristol Myers Squibb 22 24 +2

Otsuka 23 22 -1

Amgen 24 21 -3

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 25 27 +2

Chiesi 26 19 -7

Celgene 27 16 -11

LEO Pharma 28 31 +3

Grifols 29 35 +6

Ipsen 30 25 -5

Eisai 31 19 -12

Servier 32 41 +9

Daiichi Sankyo 33 42 +9

Menarini 34 30 -4

Astellas 35 40 +5

Teva 36 36 0

Grünenthal 37 33 -4

Acorda 38 28 -10

Vifor 39 - -

Vertex 40 26 -14

Sandoz 41 - -

Gedeon Richter 42 38 -4

Ferring 43 39 -4

Allergan 44 37 -7

Pierre Fabre 45 43 -2

Bial 46 44 -2

Mundipharma 47 45 -2

Almirall 48 46 -2

Overall rankings of individual pharma

companies among patient groups familiar with

the company, 2019 v. 2018—ordered high to low


PA

GE

10


Global edition

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Vertex moved downwards from overall 26th in 2018

(among patient groups familiar with the company) to

overall 40th in 2019. This dramatic fall is probably due

respondent patient groups being aware of the very-

public disputes between the company and regulators

over its product pricing.

Net Promoter Score (NPS)

NPS is a standard management tool. It asks whether

a customer would recommend a company to another

person. As such, the NPS is typically used to measure

a customer’s loyalty to the company.

For the third year in a row, PatientView’s ‘Corporate-

Reputation’ survey asked patient groups working with

a company whether they would recommend that

company to another patient group. In accordance with

standard NPS measures, the patient organisation was

asked to score its likelihood of recommendation on a

scale of 0 to 10 (with ‘10’ being a definite

recommendation of the company, and ‘0’ being

definitely no recommendation of the company).

The chart on the right provides the NPS scores

attained—ranked highest (positive) to lowest

(negative). Scores above +40% are considered

excellent. Scores below zero suggest patient-group

discontent with a corporate partner.

Companies’ NPS scores, 2019—ordered high to low

(According to respondent patient groups that work with the

company)

NPS increase 2019 v. 2018

NPS decrease 2019 v. 2018


PA

GE

11


Global edition

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Comparing the 14 largest pharma companies (‘big

pharma’), 2019 v. 2018

To enable peer-to-peer comparisons, PatientView

recalculates overall rankings for the 12 indicators for

just the 14 largest, multinational, multi-therapy pharma

companies. These ‘big-pharma’ results provide a

different perspective on how the largest

pharmaceutical companies fare for corporate

reputation, enabling peer-to-peer analyses. Takeda/

Shire was added to this listing in 2019 for the first time.

The feedback from patient groups familiar with ‘big

pharma’ provides information about the public face of

these largest companies [see table on next page].

Roche ranked overall 1st in 2019 among the 14 major

peers for corporate reputation, as judged by patient

groups familiar with the company (Roche’s 2018

ranking was 4th).

AbbVie ranked overall 2nd in 2019 among the big 14

for corporate reputation, as judged by patient groups

familiar with the company (AbbVie’s 2018 ranking was

2nd).

Novartis ranked overall 3rd in 2019 among the big 14


familiar with the company (Novartis’ 2018 ranking was

3rd).

The feedback from patient groups that work with

‘big pharma’, by contrast, brings insights into the

private, internal side of these largest companies [see

table on next page].

Roche ranked overall 1st in 2019 among the 14 major

peers, as judged by patient groups that work with the

company (Roche’s 2018 ranking was 2nd).

AbbVie ranked overall 2nd among the big 14 in 2019,

according to patient groups that work with the

company (AbbVie’s 2018 ranking was 3rd).

Novartis ranked overall 3rd in 2019 among the big 14


that work with the company (Novartis’ 2018 ranking

was 4th).

What does pharma itself say is best practice?

In parallel with the annual global survey of patient

groups, PatientView also invites pharma companies

to tell their own story about their relationships with

patients and patient groups during the year—laying

out what they believe is important, and mentioning

some of their key success stories. Eight pharma

companies contributed their global patient-centricity

‘best-practice’ activities to the 2019 Global

‘Corporate-Reputation’ report.

We would like to thank the following companies for

participating in the ‘best-practice’ section [see

accompanying supplement to this report]:

Boehringer Ingelheim.

Gilead Sciences.

Ipsen.

Lundbeck (US division).

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono.

Novartis.

Pfizer.

ViiV Healthcare.


PA

GE

12


Global edition

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The rankings of 14 ‘big-pharma’ companies at corporate reputation (among patient groups familiar with the companies), 2019 v. 2018—ordered highest to lowest

1. Patient centricity. 2. Patient information. 3. Patient safety. 4. High-quality products. 5i. Transparency: pricing. 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data.

5iii. Transparency: funding of stakeholders. 6. Integrity. 7. Quality of relationships with patient groups. 8. Providing services ‘beyond the pill’. 9i. Engaging patients in research. 9ii. Engaging patients in development.

1 2 3 4 5i 5ii 5iii 6 7 8 9i 9ii

To

tal

Ran

k 2

019

Ran

k 2

018

Diffe

ren

ce

Roche 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 1 4 +3

AbbVie 2 2 2 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 4 3 28 2 2 0

Novartis 3 3 3 2 4 2 4 4 3 3 2 2 35 3 3 0

Pfizer 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 5 45 4 5 +1

Janssen 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 59 5 1 -4

Takeda/Shire 6 6 6 6 6 12 6 6 6 6 8 9 83 6 - -

Sanofi 7 7 7 10 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 86 7 6 -1

GSK 9 9 8 8 10 8 8 8 9 9 7 6 99 8 7 -1

AstraZeneca 8 8 9 9 11 6 12 9 8 8 9 8 105 9 13 +4

Merck & Co/MSD 10 12 10 7 8 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 120 10 12 +2

Eli Lilly 11 10 11 11 12 9 11 12 11 12 14 12 136 11 8 -3

Bayer 13 11 12 12 9 11 9 11 14 14 12 10 138 12 9 -3

Bristol Myers Squibb 12 13 14 13 13 14 13 13 12 10 13 14 154 13 11 -2

Amgen 14 14 13 14 14 13 14 14 13 13 10 13 159 14 9 -5

1 2 3 4 5i 5ii 5iii 6 7 8 9i 9ii

To

tal

Ran

k 2

019

Ran

k 2

018

Diffe

ren

ce

Roche 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 13 1 2 +1

AbbVie 2 3 2 3 2 4 1 2 2 2 5 4 32 2 3 +1

Novartis 3 2 3 2 5 2 5 5 4 4 2 2 39 3 4 +1

Pfizer 4 5 4 5 4 3 3 3 3 5 3 5 47 4 5 +1

Janssen 5 4 5 4 3 6 4 4 5 3 4 3 50 5 1 -4

Takeda/Shire 6 6 6 7 6 13 6 6 6 7 11 11 91 6 - -

AstraZeneca 7 7 9 6 12 5 13 7 7 6 7 7 93 7 12 +5

GSK 9 9 7 9 9 7 7 8 8 8 6 6 93 7 7 0

Sanofi 8 8 8 10 10 11 9 9 9 11 9 9 111 9 6 -3

Bayer 12 10 11 11 8 8 8 11 10 13 8 8 118 10 9 -1

Merck & Co/MSD 11 12 10 8 7 10 10 10 13 10 12 10 123 11 13 +2

Bristol Myers Squibb 10 11 13 13 11 12 12 12 10 9 10 13 136 12 9 -3

Eli Lilly 13 13 12 12 13 9 11 13 12 12 14 14 148 13 8 -5

Amgen 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 12 165 14 9 -5

The rankings of 14 ‘big-pharma’ companies at corporate reputation (among patient groups that work with the companies), 2019 v. 2018—ordered highest to lowest


PA

GE

13 PatientView’s ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma—from a Patient Perspective’, 2019

Global edition

PATIENT-GROUP RELATIONSHIPS

WITH PHARMA

11


PA

GE


Global edition

PATIENT GROUPS: FAMILIARITY, AND PARTNERSHIPS, WITH

PHARMA COMPANIES, 2019 (Number of respondent patient groups)

COMPANY FAMILIAR WITH WORKED WITH

AbbVie 708 338

Acorda Therapeutics 84 25

Allergan 335 57

Almirall 157 33

Amgen 504 202

Astellas Pharma 303 83

AstraZeneca 805 258

Bayer 1050 242

Bial 112 21

Biogen 451 99

Boehringer Ingelheim 615 200

Bristol Myers Squibb 740 247

Celgene 376 144

Chiesi Farmaceutici 171 36

CSL Behring 226 61

Daiichi Sankyo 189 53

Eisai 197 67

Eli Lilly 742 224

Ferring 201 47

Gedeon Richter 143 35

Gilead Sciences (including Kite Pharma) 421 166

Grifols 163 48

Grünenthal 204 48

GSK 839 290

Ipsen 241 62

Janssen 822 348

LEO Pharma 262 56

Lundbeck 228 68

Menarini 213 48

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 471 131

Merck & Co/MSD 773 309

Mundipharma 193 45

Novartis 1225 511

Novo Nordisk 462 113

Octapharma 204 54

Otsuka 154 52

Pierre Fabre Laboratories 196 50

Pfizer 1236 508

Roche (Genentech in the US) 1155 503

Sandoz 569 73

Sanofi 854 319

Servier 233 66

Takeda/Shire 581 249

Teva 449 94

UCB 264 103

Vertex Pharmaceuticals 151 31

Vifor Pharma 93 22

ViiV Healthcare 205 103


PA

GE


Global edition

THE TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS THAT PATIENT GROUPS HAVE WITH PHARMA COMPANIES, 2019 (Percentage of respondent patient groups that worked with the company) N=1,234

TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS %

Support for specific projects 59.2

Helping organise events 48.3

Purely financial donations 46.8

Support for campaigns 45.9

Providing information 43.4

Support for advocacy 36.1

Support with publicity 21.1

Helping network 20.2

Training in advocacy 18.6

Involvement in clinical trials 17.5

Support for healthcare professionals 15.6

Other types of training 15.2

Support in building Web resources 15.2

Involvement in clinical research 11.3

Involvement after clinical trials 9.6

Helping conduct nonmedical research 7.5

Help in the creation of health apps 6.8

None of the above 1.4

I don't know 1.1


PA

GE


Global edition

CORPORATE REPUTATION OF THE

PHARMA INDUSTRY, 2019

11

● Corporate reputation of the pharma industry, 2019 v. 2018—compared with that of other healthcare sectors

● Corporate reputation of the pharma industry over time, 2011-2019

● Performance of the pharma industry in 2019 at activities important to patient groups

● Performance of the pharma industry at activities important to patient groups, 2011-2019


PA

GE


Global edition

THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY, 2011-2019 (Percentage of respondent patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”)

THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY, 2019 v. 2018 —COMPARED WITH THAT OF OTHER HEALTHCARE SECTORS (Percentage of respondent patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”)

2019 2018


PA

GE


Global edition

HOW GOOD OR BAD THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY WAS IN 2019 VERSUS 2018 AT CARRYING OUT SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES —all of which influence the industry’s corporate standing with patients and patient groups (Percentage of respondent patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”)

2019 2018


PA

GE


Global edition

HOW GOOD OR BAD THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY WAS IN 2019 AT CARRYING OUT SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES —COMPARED WITH PREVIOUS YEARS (Percentage of respondent patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”)

Making high-quality products Ensuring patient safety Being innovative

Relationships with patient groups Providing high-quality patient information Having a patient-centric strategy

Acting with integrity Providing services ‘beyond the pill’ Having access to medicines


PA

GE


Global edition

HOW GOOD OR BAD THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY WAS IN 2019 AT CARRYING OUT SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES —COMPARED WITH PREVIOUS YEARS (Percentage of respondent patient groups stating “Excellent” or “Good”)

Being transparent at ... Fair pricing policies

[This question was not asked in 2017]

Engaging patients in R&D


PA

GE


Global edition

RANKINGS OF INDIVIDUAL PHARMA COMPANIES

11

AMONG PATIENT GROUPS FAMILIAR WITH THE COMPANIES

2019 rankings for each indicator of corporate reputation, high to low—compared with 2018

Final 2019 overall rankings, A to Z, and high to low — compared with 2018 Note: Rankings based on scores calculated to three decimal places


PA

GE


Global edition

According to patient groups familiar with the company

INDICATOR 1. Companies with the MOST-EFFECTIVE PATIENT-CENTRED STRATEGY

Ordered high to low (percentage; rank)

2018 2019

ViiV Healthcare 51.3% 1 ViiV Healthcare 50.5% 1

AbbVie 33.7% 2 Roche/Genentech 34.9% 2

Novartis 29.5% 3 AbbVie 34.1% 3

Janssen 27.8% 4 Novartis 32.7% 4

Roche/Genentech 26.4% 5 Gilead 29.4% 5

Gilead 24.6% 6 Pfizer 29.4% 6

UCB 22.6% 7 Janssen 25.2% 7

Takeda/Shire 22.2% 8 Takeda/Shire 24.3% 8

Pfizer 22.2% 9 Sanofi 20.8% 9

Novo Nordisk 21.7% 10 Novo Nordisk 20.7% 10

Lundbeck 20.5% 11 Boehringer Ingelheim 19.2% 11

Sanofi 18.9% 12 AstraZeneca 18.9% 12

GSK 16.6% 13 GSK 17.9% 13

Chiesi 15.4% 14 UCB 17.6% 14

Eli Lilly 14.4% 15 CSL Behring 14.7% 15

Bayer 14.2% 16 Merck & Co/MSD 14.6% 16

Eisai 14.0% 17 Octapharma 14.2% 17

Boehringer Ingelheim 13.5% 18 Celgene 13.6% 18

Merck & Co/MSD 13.5% 19 Eli Lilly 13.6% 19

Grünenthal 13.4% 20 Lundbeck 13.6% 20

Biogen 13.0% 21 Bristol Myers Squibb 13.5% 21

Acorda 12.9% 22 Bayer 13.4% 22

Otsuka 12.4% 23 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 12.6% 23

Celgene 12.1% 24 LEO Pharma 11.6% 24

LEO Pharma 11.9% 25 Biogen 11.2% 25

Amgen 11.5% 26 Otsuka 11.2% 26

Ipsen 11.4% 27 Grifols 10.6% 27

Menarini 11.0% 28 Amgen 10.5% 28

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 10.3% 29 Astellas 10.3% 29

Bristol Myers Squibb 10.3% 30 Gedeon Richter 10.0% 30

AstraZeneca 10.0% 31 Servier 9.6% 31

Vertex 10.0% 32 Menarini 9.2% 32

CSL Behring 9.4% 33 Chiesi 9.0% 33

Gedeon Richter 9.1% 34 Ipsen 9.0% 34

Octapharma 8.9% 35 Daiichi Sankyo 8.6% 35

Allergan 8.4% 36 Grünenthal 8.1% 36

Astellas 8.0% 37 Eisai 7.8% 37

Teva 7.6% 38 Teva 7.8% 38

Bial 6.9% 39 Ferring 7.2% 39

Ferring 6.8% 40 Acorda 6.3% 40

Daiichi Sankyo 6.3% 41 Allergan 6.2% 41

Grifols 5.8% 42 Vertex 6.1% 42

Pierre Fabre 5.0% 43 Sandoz 6.0% 43

Servier 3.6% 44 Vifor 5.4% 44

Mundipharma 2.9% 45 Pierre Fabre 5.2% 45

Almirall 2.8% 46 Bial 3.7% 46

Almirall 3.2% 47

Mundipharma 3.2% 48


PA

GE


Global edition


INDICATOR 2. Companies providing the BEST HIGH-QUALITY PATIENT INFORMATION


2018 2019




Gilead 24.6% 4 Novartis 28.1% 4

Janssen 24.1% 5 Pfizer 25.4% 5

Roche/Genentech 23.9% 6 Gilead 25.1% 6

Takeda/Shire 19.8% 7 Janssen 22.8% 7

Novo Nordisk 18.2% 8 Takeda/Shire 20.9% 8

Pfizer 18.1% 9 Novo Nordisk 20.0% 9

Sanofi 17.0% 10 Sanofi 18.9% 10

UCB 16.4% 11 Boehringer Ingelheim 16.9% 11

Lundbeck 16.4% 11 AstraZeneca 15.3% 12

GSK 14.4% 13 GSK 13.9% 13

Eli Lilly 13.2% 14 Eli Lilly 12.7% 14

Bayer 12.5% 15 Bayer 12.6% 15

Boehringer Ingelheim 11.5% 16 Merck & Co/MSD 12.4% 16

LEO Pharma 10.8% 17 CSL Behring 11.5% 17

Celgene 10.6% 18 UCB 10.6% 18

Eisai 10.3% 19 Grifols 10.6% 19

Biogen 10.0% 20 Lundbeck 10.4% 20

Grünenthal 10.0% 21 Octapharma 9.7% 21

Otsuka 10.0% 21 Bristol Myers Squibb 9.7% 22

Amgen 9.9% 23 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 9.5% 23

Ipsen 9.7% 24 Chiesi 9.5% 24

Bristol Myers Squibb 9.1% 25 Otsuka 9.3% 25

Chiesi 9.0% 26 Amgen 9.1% 26

Merck & Co/MSD 8.9% 27 Biogen 9.0% 27

AstraZeneca 8.4% 28 Celgene 8.8% 28

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 8.3% 29 Servier 7.5% 29

Menarini 7.2% 30 LEO Pharma 7.5% 30

Teva 6.9% 31 Menarini 6.8% 31

Gedeon Richter 6.9% 32 Gedeon Richter 6.5% 32

Grifols 6.8% 33 Astellas 5.9% 33

Allergan 6.7% 34 Teva 5.8% 34

Acorda 6.6% 35 Ipsen 5.7% 35

Astellas 6.1% 36 Vifor 5.5% 36

Vertex 6.1% 37 Eisai 5.3% 37


Servier 4.8% 39 Grünenthal 5.1% 39

CSL Behring 4.3% 40 Pierre Fabre 4.8% 40

Bial 4.3% 41 Vertex 4.1% 41

Ferring 4.1% 42 Daiichi Sankyo 3.8% 42

Daiichi Sankyo 3.7% 43 Acorda 3.8% 43

Octapharma 3.3% 44 Ferring 3.6% 44

Almirall 2.9% 45 Allergan 3.2% 45

Mundipharma 2.2% 46 Mundipharma 2.1% 46

Almirall 1.3% 47

Bial 0.9% 48


PA

GE

24


Global edition


INDICATOR 3. Companies with the BEST RECORD ON PATIENT SAFETY


2018 2019



Roche/Genentech 18.7% 3 AbbVie 21.2% 3


Novartis 17.5% 5 Gilead 18.9% 5


Pfizer 14.9% 7 Janssen 17.1% 7


Takeda/Shire 13.0% 9 Boehringer Ingelheim 13.5% 9

Lundbeck 12.6% 10 Takeda/Shire 13.4% 10

Sanofi 10.5% 11 Sanofi 13.0% 11

Bayer 10.1% 12 Grifols 12.3% 12

UCB 10.1% 13 CSL Behring 12.1% 13

Otsuka 9.2% 14 GSK 11.7% 14

GSK 8.9% 15 AstraZeneca 10.3% 15

Ipsen 8.7% 16 Octapharma 9.8% 16

Eisai 8.5% 17 Merck & Co/MSD 9.6% 17

Octapharma 8.3% 18 Biogen 9.5% 18

Boehringer Ingelheim 8.2% 19 Eli Lilly 9.4% 19

Eli Lilly 8.1% 20 Bayer 9.2% 20

Biogen 7.8% 21 Lundbeck 8.7% 21

LEO Pharma 7.2% 22 UCB 8.1% 22

Celgene 6.9% 23 LEO Pharma 7.9% 23

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 6.8% 24 Chiesi 7.9% 24

Bristol Myers Squibb 6.8% 25 Celgene 7.7% 25

Grünenthal 6.8% 26 Amgen 6.7% 26


AstraZeneca 6.5% 28 Eisai 6.2% 28

Merck & Co/MSD 6.4% 29 Menarini 6.0% 29

Menarini 6.1% 30 Bristol Myers Squibb 6.0% 30

CSL Behring 6.1% 31 Ipsen 5.9% 31

Grifols 6.0% 32 Otsuka 5.6% 32

Gedeon Richter 5.8% 33 Teva 5.3% 33

Allergan 5.2% 34 Servier 5.1% 34

Acorda 4.9% 35 Daiichi Sankyo 5.1% 35

Teva 4.9% 36 Sandoz 4.2% 36

Chiesi 4.5% 37 Acorda 3.8% 37

Astellas 4.5% 38 Gedeon Richter 3.8% 38

Servier 4.3% 39 Ferring 3.7% 39

Ferring 3.4% 40 Grünenthal 3.6% 40

Vertex 3.0% 41 Vertex 3.5% 41

Mundipharma 2.9% 42 Astellas 3.3% 42

Pierre Fabre 2.2% 43 Allergan 2.6% 43

Daiichi Sankyo 1.9% 44 Vifor 2.2% 44

Bial 0.0% 45 Pierre Fabre 2.2% 45

Almirall 0.0% 45 Mundipharma 1.1% 46

Bial 1.0% 47

Almirall 0.0% 48


PA

GE


Global edition


INDICATOR 4. Companies with the MOST-USEFUL, HIGH-QUALITY PRODUCTS


2018 2019


Gilead 29.7% 2 Roche/Genentech 32.1% 2

AbbVie 25.4% 3 Gilead 29.5% 3

Novartis 24.3% 4 Novartis 29.4% 4



Novo Nordisk 19.1% 7 Janssen 23.5% 7



Sanofi 16.0% 10 Merck & Co/MSD 17.3% 10

Lundbeck 14.8% 11 GSK 16.5% 11

UCB 14.4% 12 Octapharma 15.7% 12


Amgen 13.6% 14 Sanofi 15.6% 14

Bayer 13.3% 15 Boehringer Ingelheim 14.9% 15

Vertex 13.1% 16 Eli Lilly 13.5% 16

Eli Lilly 13.1% 17 CSL Behring 13.4% 17

Celgene 12.5% 18 Biogen 12.5% 18

Merck & Co/MSD 12.5% 19 Bayer 12.4% 19

AstraZeneca 11.0% 20 Lundbeck 11.8% 20

Boehringer Ingelheim 11.0% 21 UCB 11.4% 21

Otsuka 11.0% 22 Otsuka 11.3% 22


Eisai 10.3% 24 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 10.4% 24

CSL Behring 10.1% 25 Amgen 9.2% 25

Gedeon Richter 9.2% 26 Ipsen 9.1% 26

Bristol Myers Squibb 9.1% 27 Astellas 9.0% 27

Chiesi 9.0% 28 Vertex 8.8% 28

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 8.6% 29 Teva 8.8% 29

Ipsen 8.5% 30 Celgene 8.5% 30

Menarini 8.3% 31 Eisai 8.4% 31

Allergan 7.8% 32 Grifols 8.2% 32

Octapharma 7.3% 33 Menarini 8.2% 33

LEO Pharma 7.0% 34 Chiesi 7.8% 34

Ferring 6.8% 35 Sandoz 6.9% 35

Grifols 6.7% 36 LEO Pharma 6.3% 36

Teva 6.6% 37 Gedeon Richter 5.8% 37


Astellas 5.7% 39 Servier 5.3% 39

Grünenthal 5.3% 40 Ferring 4.6% 40

Pierre Fabre 5.0% 41 Vifor 4.4% 41

Acorda 4.9% 42 Daiichi Sankyo 3.8% 42

Daiichi Sankyo 4.8% 43 Acorda 3.8% 43

Almirall 3.8% 44 Allergan 3.5% 44

Mundipharma 1.5% 45 Mundipharma 3.2% 45


Almirall 2.6% 47

Bial 1.9% 48


PA

GE

26


Global edition


INDICATOR 5i. Companies with the BEST RECORD OF TRANSPARENCY ON PRICING


2018 2019


Janssen 11.5% 2 AbbVie 14.3% 2

Roche/Genentech 11.0% 3 Roche/Genentech 13.7% 3

Novartis 10.8% 4 Pfizer 12.4% 4

AbbVie 10.2% 5 Novartis 11.6% 5

Gilead 10.1% 6 Gilead 11.3% 6

UCB 8.9% 7 Janssen 10.6% 7

Pfizer 8.7% 8 Takeda/Shire 8.5% 8

Takeda/Shire 8.4% 9 Sanofi 7.6% 9

GSK 6.5% 10 Merck & Co/MSD 7.4% 10

Bayer 6.5% 11 Novo Nordisk 6.9% 11

Sanofi 6.5% 12 Bayer 6.9% 12


Chiesi 5.4% 14 Chiesi 6.7% 14

Novo Nordisk 5.3% 15 CSL Behring 6.6% 15

Biogen 5.3% 16 GSK 6.5% 16

CSL Behring 5.1% 17 Octapharma 5.7% 17

Boehringer Ingelheim 5.1% 18 Otsuka 5.4% 18

Vertex 5.0% 19 AstraZeneca 5.3% 19

AstraZeneca 5.0% 20 Eli Lilly 5.2% 20

Octapharma 5.0% 21 Bristol Myers Squibb 4.9% 21

Bristol Myers Squibb 4.8% 22 Grifols 4.7% 22

Celgene 4.6% 23 UCB 4.5% 23

Eli Lilly 4.6% 24 Lundbeck 4.1% 24

Eisai 4.4% 25 LEO Pharma 4.1% 25

Ipsen 4.3% 26 Daiichi Sankyo 3.9% 26

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 4.0% 27 Amgen 3.6% 27

Grifols 4.0% 28 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 3.6% 28

Merck & Co/MSD 3.9% 29 Biogen 3.6% 29

Menarini 3.8% 30 Menarini 3.5% 30

Teva 3.8% 31 Teva 3.3% 31

Allergan 3.7% 32 Pierre Fabre 3.2% 32

Otsuka 3.7% 33 Sandoz 3.2% 33


Amgen 3.4% 35 Ipsen 3.1% 35

Ferring 3.4% 36 Gedeon Richter 3.0% 36

Almirall 2.9% 37 Acorda 2.6% 37

Grünenthal 2.7% 38 Celgene 2.6% 38

Servier 2.6% 39 Astellas 2.2% 39

Gedeon Richter 2.4% 40 Ferring 2.1% 40

Daiichi Sankyo 1.9% 41 Grünenthal 2.0% 41

Acorda 1.6% 42 Allergan 1.3% 42

LEO Pharma 1.6% 43 Vifor 1.1% 43

Bial 1.5% 44 Mundipharma 1.1% 44

Mundipharma 1.5% 45 Eisai 1.1% 45

Pierre Fabre 1.5% 46 Bial 1.0% 46

Vertex 0.7% 47

Almirall 0.7% 48


PA

GE


Global edition


INDICATOR 5ii. Companies with the BEST RECORD OF TRANSPARENCY ON CLINICAL DATA


2018 2019






AbbVie 10.5% 6 Pfizer 12.6% 6

Sanofi 7.9% 7 Janssen 11.4% 7

Biogen 7.8% 8 Boehringer Ingelheim 8.9% 8

UCB 7.8% 9 AstraZeneca 8.8% 9

Takeda/Shire 7.7% 10 Novo Nordisk 7.7% 10

Novo Nordisk 7.7% 11 Sanofi 7.7% 11

Lundbeck 7.6% 12 GSK 7.4% 12

Eli Lilly 7.5% 13 Lundbeck 7.4% 13

Pfizer 6.8% 14 Biogen 7.3% 14

GSK 6.5% 15 UCB 7.2% 15

Acorda 6.5% 16 Eli Lilly 6.7% 16


Vertex 5.9% 18 Bayer 6.4% 18

Bayer 5.8% 19 Takeda/Shire 6.3% 19

Celgene 5.8% 20 Amgen 5.6% 20

AstraZeneca 5.6% 21 Bristol Myers Squibb 5.5% 21

Otsuka 5.4% 22 Octapharma 5.2% 22


Amgen 5.3% 23 CSL Behring 4.7% 24

Bristol Myers Squibb 5.1% 25 Vifor 4.4% 25


Servier 4.8% 27 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 4.1% 27

Merck & Co/MSD 4.5% 28 Ipsen 4.0% 28

Eisai 4.3% 29 Eisai 3.8% 29

Menarini 3.8% 30 Celgene 3.7% 30

CSL Behring 3.7% 31 Servier 3.6% 31

Allergan 3.4% 32 Otsuka 3.4% 32

Octapharma 3.3% 33 Daiichi Sankyo 3.3% 33

Ipsen 3.1% 34 Teva 3.1% 34

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 2.8% 35 Acorda 2.6% 35


Grünenthal 2.7% 37 LEO Pharma 2.4% 37

Teva 2.7% 38 Sandoz 2.1% 38

Mundipharma 2.2% 39 Menarini 2.0% 39

LEO Pharma 1.6% 40 Grifols 2.0% 40

Astellas 1.6% 41 Bial 1.9% 41

Pierre Fabre 1.5% 42 Astellas 1.4% 42

Bial 1.4% 43 Allergan 1.3% 43


Almirall 1.0% 45 Gedeon Richter 0.7% 45

Daiichi Sankyo 0.9% 46 Almirall 0.7% 46

Pierre Fabre 0.5% 47

Mundipharma 0.0% 48


PA

GE

28


Global edition


INDICATOR 5iii. Companies with the BEST RECORD OF TRANSPARENCY ON FUNDING

EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS Ordered high to low (percentage; rank)

2018 2019





Novartis 12.0% 5 Pfizer 14.1% 5

Roche/Genentech 12.0% 6 Novartis 13.6% 6



Sanofi 8.2% 9 Sanofi 8.1% 9

Lundbeck 7.6% 10 GSK 8.1% 10

Celgene 7.3% 11 Novo Nordisk 7.3% 11


GSK 6.7% 13 Boehringer Ingelheim 6.9% 13

Amgen 6.4% 14 Bayer 6.9% 14

Eli Lilly 6.0% 15 Merck & Co/MSD 6.7% 15


Menarini 5.5% 17 Lundbeck 5.6% 17

Merck & Co/MSD 5.4% 18 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 5.5% 18

Eisai 5.2% 19 AstraZeneca 5.4% 19

UCB 5.1% 20 Biogen 5.3% 20

Bayer 5.0% 21 LEO Pharma 5.3% 21

Gedeon Richter 4.7% 22 Bristol Myers Squibb 5.2% 22

Otsuka 4.5% 23 Amgen 5.2% 23

CSL Behring 4.4% 24 UCB 4.9% 24


Chiesi 3.8% 26 Octapharma 4.7% 26

Biogen 3.8% 27 Grifols 4.7% 27

Teva 3.8% 28 Celgene 4.0% 28

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 3.7% 29 Eisai 3.9% 29

AstraZeneca 3.5% 30 Chiesi 3.7% 30

Ipsen 3.1% 31 Servier 3.6% 31


Daiichi Sankyo 2.8% 33 Grünenthal 3.6% 33

Ferring 2.8% 34 Vifor 3.4% 34

Pierre Fabre 2.2% 35 Pierre Fabre 3.2% 35

LEO Pharma 2.2% 36 Daiichi Sankyo 2.8% 36

Servier 2.2% 37 Teva 2.4% 37

Astellas 2.1% 38 Vertex 2.1% 38

Grünenthal 2.0% 39 Menarini 2.0% 39

Acorda 1.6% 40 Almirall 2.0% 40

Allergan 1.5% 41 Allergan 2.0% 41

Bial 1.5% 42 Ipsen 1.8% 42

Vertex 1.0% 43 Acorda 1.3% 43

Almirall 1.0% 44 Sandoz 1.1% 44


Mundipharma 0.7% 46 Bial 1.0% 46

Gedeon Richter 0.7% 47

Mundipharma 0.0% 48


PA

GE

29


Global edition


INDICATOR 6. Companies with the MOST INTEGRITY


2018 2019


Janssen 18.7% 2 Roche/Genentech 23.4% 2

AbbVie 17.9% 3 AbbVie 22.8% 3

Roche/Genentech 17.9% 4 Pfizer 19.0% 4


Gilead 15.1% 6 Janssen 17.9% 6

UCB 13.2% 7 Gilead 17.8% 7


Takeda/Shire 13.1% 9 Lundbeck 14.3% 9

Novo Nordisk 12.3% 10 Boehringer Ingelheim 12.8% 10

Lundbeck 12.1% 11 Novo Nordisk 12.1% 11

Sanofi 11.0% 12 Sanofi 11.9% 12

Eli Lilly 10.0% 13 GSK 10.9% 13


Chiesi 9.1% 15 Merck & Co/MSD 10.4% 15


GSK 8.9% 17 Bayer 9.0% 17

Bristol Myers Squibb 8.4% 18 UCB 8.8% 18

Merck & Co/MSD 8.3% 19 Eli Lilly 8.5% 19

Acorda 8.2% 20 CSL Behring 8.3% 20

Celgene 7.6% 21 Octapharma 7.7% 21


Ipsen 7.5% 23 Servier 7.2% 23

Amgen 7.1% 24 LEO Pharma 7.2% 24

Menarini 6.7% 25 Grifols 7.2% 25

Bayer 6.3% 26 Celgene 7.0% 26

AstraZeneca 6.1% 27 Amgen 6.9% 27


LEO Pharma 5.9% 29 Acorda 6.5% 29


Grünenthal 5.4% 31 Chiesi 6.1% 31


Octapharma 5.0% 33 Astellas 6.0% 33

Astellas 4.9% 34 Biogen 5.6% 34


Grifols 4.9% 36 Menarini 5.1% 36

Allergan 4.5% 37 Daiichi Sankyo 4.9% 37

Pierre Fabre 4.3% 38 Vifor 4.5% 38

Teva 3.8% 39 Teva 3.3% 39

Bial 3.1% 40 Allergan 3.2% 40

Daiichi Sankyo 2.8% 41 Ferring 3.1% 41

Gedeon Richter 2.3% 42 Gedeon Richter 3.0% 42

Vertex 2.1% 43 Bial 2.9% 43

Servier 1.6% 44 Vertex 2.8% 44

Mundipharma 1.4% 45 Pierre Fabre 2.7% 45

Almirall 1.0% 46 Sandoz 2.2% 46

Almirall 2.0% 47

Mundipharma 1.1% 48


PA

GE

30


Global edition


INDICATOR 7. Companies with the BEST PATIENT-GROUP RELATIONSHIPS


2018 2019








UCB 22.1% 8 Takeda/Shire 22.8% 8

Lundbeck 18.6% 9 Sanofi 17.9% 9




Ipsen 11.7% 13 Boehringer Ingelheim 14.3% 13

Amgen 11.1% 14 GSK 14.1% 14

Eli Lilly 11.1% 15 UCB 13.4% 15

Vertex 11.0% 16 Merck & Co/MSD 12.7% 16

Celgene 10.9% 17 Otsuka 12.6% 17

Eisai 10.9% 18 Lundbeck 12.2% 18

GSK 10.7% 19 Eli Lilly 12.0% 19

Chiesi 10.5% 20 Bristol Myers Squibb 11.4% 20

Boehringer Ingelheim 10.3% 21 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 10.7% 21

Biogen 10.1% 22 Eisai 10.6% 22

Merck & Co/MSD 9.9% 23 Celgene 9.9% 23

Bristol Myers Squibb 9.8% 24 Biogen 9.8% 24

Otsuka 9.7% 25 Amgen 9.8% 25

Bayer 9.5% 26 Bayer 9.6% 26

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 8.8% 27 Chiesi 9.1% 27

LEO Pharma 8.7% 28 Grifols 9.0% 28

Acorda 8.2% 29 Octapharma 8.7% 29

Grünenthal 8.1% 30 Servier 8.0% 30

AstraZeneca 8.0% 31 Astellas 7.9% 31

CSL Behring 8.0% 32 LEO Pharma 7.5% 32


Astellas 7.3% 34 Ipsen 6.1% 34

Gedeon Richter 7.0% 35 Daiichi Sankyo 5.4% 35

Menarini 6.7% 36 Acorda 5.1% 36


Teva 4.8% 38 Teva 4.6% 38

Bial 4.6% 39 Grünenthal 4.6% 39

Servier 4.2% 40 Allergan 4.4% 40

Ferring 4.1% 41 Vifor 3.3% 41

Grifols 3.8% 42 Ferring 3.0% 42


Pierre Fabre 3.6% 44 Mundipharma 2.7% 44

Daiichi Sankyo 1.8% 45 Sandoz 2.6% 45


Vertex 2.1% 47

Almirall 1.3% 48


PA

GE


Global edition


INDICATOR 8. Companies with the BEST RECORD FOR PROVIDING SERVICES

‘BEYOND THE PILL’ Ordered high to low (percentage; rank)

2018 2019



Gilead 20.1% 3 AbbVie 23.9% 3




UCB 16.9% 7 Janssen 18.5% 7



Pfizer 13.1% 10 UCB 12.7% 10

Sanofi 11.6% 11 Sanofi 11.8% 11

Eisai 10.3% 12 Boehringer Ingelheim 11.8% 12

Lundbeck 9.8% 13 Lundbeck 11.5% 13


LEO Pharma 9.1% 15 GSK 10.1% 15

Eli Lilly 8.9% 16 Bristol Myers Squibb 9.7% 16


Chiesi 8.3% 18 Merck & Co/MSD 9.3% 18

Celgene 7.6% 19 Octapharma 8.8% 19

Biogen 7.5% 20 Eisai 8.6% 20

Amgen 7.3% 21 Biogen 8.2% 21

Otsuka 7.2% 22 Eli Lilly 8.1% 22

Menarini 7.1% 23 LEO Pharma 8.0% 23

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 7.0% 24 Ipsen 8.0% 24

Bayer 6.7% 25 Chiesi 7.9% 25

Acorda 6.6% 26 Amgen 7.8% 26

Bristol Myers Squibb 6.3% 27 Servier 7.7% 27

Merck & Co/MSD 6.2% 28 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 7.6% 28

Ipsen 5.6% 29 CSL Behring 7.5% 29

AstraZeneca 5.3% 30 Celgene 7.3% 30

CSL Behring 5.1% 31 Grifols 6.5% 31

Pierre Fabre 5.0% 32 Bayer 6.2% 32


Ferring 4.8% 34 Astellas 5.9% 34

Teva 4.6% 35 Vifor 5.7% 35

Astellas 4.1% 36 Daiichi Sankyo 5.0% 36

Octapharma 4.1% 37 Teva 4.2% 37

Grünenthal 4.1% 38 Allergan 4.2% 38

Grifols 3.8% 39 Acorda 3.8% 39

Daiichi Sankyo 3.7% 40 Vertex 3.5% 40

Servier 2.7% 41 Pierre Fabre 3.2% 41

Allergan 2.6% 42 Grünenthal 3.1% 42


Bial 1.5% 44 Sandoz 2.3% 44

Mundipharma 0.7% 45 Gedeon Richter 1.5% 45


Mundipharma 0.0% 46

Almirall 0.0% 46


PA

GE


Global edition


INDICATOR 9i. Companies with the BEST RECORD FOR ENGAGING PATIENTS IN RESEARCH


2018 2019


UCB 13.6% 2 Roche/Genentech 17.0% 2




Roche/Genentech 10.8% 6 Boehringer Ingelheim 11.1% 6

AbbVie 10.3% 7 Janssen 10.5% 7

Takeda/Shire 9.5% 8 Gilead 9.8% 8

Vertex 8.9% 9 Sanofi 7.3% 9

Acorda 8.2% 10 GSK 7.2% 10

Celgene 8.1% 11 Takeda/Shire 6.6% 11

Pfizer 7.8% 12 Biogen 6.3% 12

Chiesi 7.7% 13 Lundbeck 6.2% 13



GSK 6.1% 16 Amgen 5.8% 16

Amgen 5.8% 17 Novo Nordisk 5.6% 17


Novo Nordisk 5.4% 19 Ipsen 5.5% 19

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 5.2% 20 Bayer 5.4% 20

Lundbeck 4.9% 21 Octapharma 5.3% 21

Biogen 4.7% 22 Grünenthal 5.2% 22


Ipsen 4.3% 24 Eli Lilly 5.0% 24

Eisai 4.3% 25 Otsuka 5.0% 25

Grünenthal 4.1% 26 Celgene 4.3% 26

Bayer 3.7% 27 Daiichi Sankyo 3.9% 27

AstraZeneca 3.7% 28 Chiesi 3.7% 28

Merck & Co/MSD 3.6% 29 Vifor 3.4% 29


Daiichi Sankyo 2.8% 31 CSL Behring 2.9% 31

Ferring 2.8% 32 Eisai 2.8% 32

Menarini 2.7% 33 Vertex 2.8% 33


Octapharma 2.5% 35 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 2.8% 35

Astellas 2.5% 36 Acorda 2.7% 36

Teva 2.4% 37 LEO Pharma 2.4% 37

Gedeon Richter 2.4% 38 Sandoz 2.3% 38

Pierre Fabre 2.2% 39 Ferring 2.1% 39

Servier 2.2% 40 Menarini 2.0% 40

Grifols 2.0% 41 Bial 2.0% 41

LEO Pharma 1.6% 42 Teva 1.7% 42

CSL Behring 1.5% 43 Gedeon Richter 1.5% 43

Bial 1.5% 44 Astellas 1.4% 44

Mundipharma 1.5% 44 Allergan 1.3% 45

Almirall 0.0% 46 Pierre Fabre 1.1% 46

Almirall 0.7% 47

Mundipharma 0.6% 48


PA

GE


Global edition


INDICATOR 9ii. Companies with the BEST RECORD FOR ENGAGING PATIENTS

IN DEVELOPMENT Ordered high to low (percentage; rank)

2018 2019


Novartis 11.1% 2 Roche/Genentech 15.0% 2



Roche/Genentech 10.1% 5 Janssen 9.8% 5

Vertex 9.0% 6 Pfizer 8.7% 6


Acorda 8.3% 8 Gilead 8.3% 8

Celgene 7.8% 9 GSK 6.4% 9


Pfizer 7.4% 11 Lundbeck 6.2% 11

AbbVie 6.9% 12 UCB 6.0% 12

Sanofi 6.4% 13 Novo Nordisk 5.9% 13

Biogen 6.1% 14 Biogen 5.9% 14

Boehringer Ingelheim 5.9% 15 AstraZeneca 5.5% 15

Chiesi 5.3% 16 Takeda/Shire 5.5% 16

Novo Nordisk 5.3% 17 Bayer 5.4% 17


Lundbeck 5.0% 19 CSL Behring 4.3% 19

Grünenthal 4.7% 20 Acorda 3.9% 20

Otsuka 4.5% 21 Daiichi Sankyo 3.9% 21

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 4.4% 22 LEO Pharma 3.7% 22

GSK 4.3% 23 Eli Lilly 3.7% 23

LEO Pharma 4.0% 24 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 3.7% 24

Bristol Myers Squibb 3.8% 25 Amgen 3.6% 25

Amgen 3.8% 26 Ipsen 3.6% 26

CSL Behring 3.7% 27 Otsuka 3.5% 27

Merck & Co/MSD 3.6% 28 Bristol Myers Squibb 3.2% 28

Bayer 3.6% 29 Octapharma 3.2% 29

Ferring 3.5% 30 Celgene 3.1% 30

Eisai 3.4% 31 Chiesi 3.1% 31

Ipsen 3.1% 32 Grünenthal 2.7% 32




AstraZeneca 2.7% 36 Allergan 2.0% 36

Teva 2.5% 37 Servier 1.8% 37

Astellas 1.7% 38 Teva 1.7% 38

Servier 1.7% 39 Eisai 1.7% 39


Allergan 1.5% 41 Astellas 1.4% 41

Bial 1.5% 42 Vifor 1.1% 42

Mundipharma 1.5% 43 Grifols 0.7% 43

Gedeon Richter 1.1% 44 Mundipharma 0.6% 44

Pierre Fabre 0.7% 45 Bial 0.0% 45


Pierre Fabre 0.0% 45

Almirall 0.0% 45


PA

GE

34


Global edition

RANKINGS OF INDIVIDUAL PHARMA COMPANIES AMONG PATIENT GROUPS FAMILIAR WITH THE COMPANY, 2019 v. 2018, ordered A to Z

1 2 3 4 5i 5ii 5iii 6 7 8 9i 9ii

To

tal

Ran

k 2

019

Ran

k 2

018

Diffe

ren

ce

AbbVie 3 3 3 5 2 5 4 3 3 3 5 4 43 3 5 +2

Acorda 40 43 37 43 37 35 43 29 36 39 36 20 438 38 28 -10

Allergan 41 45 43 44 42 43 41 40 40 38 45 36 498 44 37 -7

Almirall 47 47 48 47 48 46 40 47 48 46 47 45 556 48 46 -2

Amgen 28 26 26 25 27 20 23 27 25 26 16 25 294 24 21 -3

Astellas 29 33 42 27 39 42 32 33 31 34 44 41 427 35 40 +5

AstraZeneca 12 12 15 13 19 9 19 14 11 14 15 15 168 13 29 +16

Bayer 22 15 20 19 12 18 14 17 26 32 20 17 232 19 18 -1

Bial 46 48 47 48 46 41 46 43 43 46 41 45 540 46 44 -2

Biogen 25 27 18 18 29 14 20 34 24 21 12 14 256 21 17 -4

Boehringer Ingelheim 11 11 9 15 13 8 13 10 13 12 6 7 128 11 15 +4

Bristol Myers Squibb 21 22 30 23 21 21 22 22 20 16 23 28 269 22 24 +2

Celgene 18 28 25 30 38 30 28 26 23 30 26 30 332 27 16 -11

Chiesi 33 24 24 34 14 23 30 31 27 25 28 31 324 26 19 -7

CSL Behring 15 17 13 17 15 24 12 20 12 29 31 19 224 17 32 +15

Daiichi Sankyo 35 42 35 42 26 33 36 37 35 36 27 21 405 33 42 +9

Eisai 37 37 28 31 45 29 29 28 22 20 32 39 377 31 19 -12

Eli Lilly 19 14 19 16 20 16 16 19 19 22 24 23 227 18 14 -4

Ferring 39 44 39 40 40 44 45 41 42 43 39 40 496 43 39 -4

Gedeon Richter 30 32 38 37 36 45 47 42 46 45 43 45 486 42 38 -4

Gilead 5 6 5 3 6 3 3 7 4 5 8 8 63 5 2 -3

Grifols 27 19 12 32 22 40 27 25 28 31 30 43 336 29 35 +6

Grünenthal 36 39 40 38 41 36 33 35 39 42 22 32 433 37 33 -4

GSK 13 13 14 11 16 12 10 13 14 15 10 9 150 12 13 +1

Ipsen 34 35 31 26 35 28 42 30 34 24 19 26 364 30 25 -5

Janssen 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 5 81 7 3 -4

LEO Pharma 24 30 23 36 25 37 21 24 32 23 37 22 334 28 31 +3

Lundbeck 20 20 21 20 24 13 17 9 18 13 13 11 199 15 12 -3

Menarini 32 31 29 33 30 39 39 36 33 33 40 35 410 34 30 -4

Merck & Co/MSD 16 16 17 10 10 17 15 15 16 18 18 18 186 14 23 +9

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 23 23 27 24 28 27 18 32 21 28 35 24 310 25 27 +2

Mundipharma 48 46 46 45 44 48 48 48 44 46 48 44 555 47 45 -2

Novartis 4 4 4 4 5 4 6 5 5 4 3 3 51 4 4 0

Novo Nordisk 10 9 8 8 11 10 11 11 10 9 17 13 127 10 11 +1

Octapharma 17 21 16 12 17 22 26 21 29 19 21 29 250 20 34 +14

Otsuka 26 25 32 22 18 32 25 16 17 17 25 27 282 23 22 -1

Pfizer 6 5 6 6 4 6 5 4 6 6 4 6 64 6 9 +3

Pierre Fabre 45 40 45 46 32 47 35 45 37 41 46 45 504 45 43 -2

Roche/Genentech 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 25 2 6 +4

Sandoz 43 38 36 35 33 38 44 46 45 44 38 34 474 41 - -

Sanofi 9 10 11 14 9 11 9 12 9 11 9 10 124 9 10 +1

Servier 31 29 34 39 34 31 31 23 30 27 34 37 380 32 41 +9

Takeda/Shire 8 8 10 9 8 19 8 8 8 8 11 16 121 8 7 -1

Teva 38 34 33 29 31 34 37 39 38 37 42 38 430 36 36 0

UCB 14 18 22 21 23 15 24 18 15 10 14 12 206 16 8 -8

Vertex 42 41 41 28 47 26 38 44 47 40 33 33 460 40 26 -14

Vifor 44 36 44 41 43 25 34 38 41 35 29 42 452 39 - -

ViiV Healthcare 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 0




PA

GE


Global edition

RANKINGS OF INDIVIDUAL PHARMA COMPANIES AMONG PATIENT GROUPS FAMILIAR WITH THE COMPANY, 2019 v. 2018, ordered high to low

1 2 3 4 5i 5ii 5iii 6 7 8 9i 9ii

To

tal

Ran

k 2

019

Ran

k 2

018

Diffe

ren

ce

ViiV Healthcare 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 0

Roche/Genentech 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 25 2 6 +4

AbbVie 3 3 3 5 2 5 4 3 3 3 5 4 43 3 5 +2

Novartis 4 4 4 4 5 4 6 5 5 4 3 3 51 4 4 0

Gilead 5 6 5 3 6 3 3 7 4 5 8 8 63 5 2 -3

Pfizer 6 5 6 6 4 6 5 4 6 6 4 6 64 6 9 +3

Janssen 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 5 81 7 3 -4

Takeda/Shire 8 8 10 9 8 19 8 8 8 8 11 16 121 8 7 -1

Sanofi 9 10 11 14 9 11 9 12 9 11 9 10 124 9 10 +1

Novo Nordisk 10 9 8 8 11 10 11 11 10 9 17 13 127 10 11 +1


GSK 13 13 14 11 16 12 10 13 14 15 10 9 150 12 13 +1

AstraZeneca 12 12 15 13 19 9 19 14 11 14 15 15 168 13 29 +16

Merck & Co/MSD 16 16 17 10 10 17 15 15 16 18 18 18 186 14 23 +9

Lundbeck 20 20 21 20 24 13 17 9 18 13 13 11 199 15 12 -3

UCB 14 18 22 21 23 15 24 18 15 10 14 12 206 16 8 -8

CSL Behring 15 17 13 17 15 24 12 20 12 29 31 19 224 17 32 +15

Eli Lilly 19 14 19 16 20 16 16 19 19 22 24 23 227 18 14 -4

Bayer 22 15 20 19 12 18 14 17 26 32 20 17 232 19 18 -1

Octapharma 17 21 16 12 17 22 26 21 29 19 21 29 250 20 34 +14

Biogen 25 27 18 18 29 14 20 34 24 21 12 14 256 21 17 -4


Otsuka 26 25 32 22 18 32 25 16 17 17 25 27 282 23 22 -1

Amgen 28 26 26 25 27 20 23 27 25 26 16 25 294 24 21 -3


Chiesi 33 24 24 34 14 23 30 31 27 25 28 31 324 26 19 -7

Celgene 18 28 25 30 38 30 28 26 23 30 26 30 332 27 16 -11

LEO Pharma 24 30 23 36 25 37 21 24 32 23 37 22 334 28 31 +3

Grifols 27 19 12 32 22 40 27 25 28 31 30 43 336 29 35 +6

Ipsen 34 35 31 26 35 28 42 30 34 24 19 26 364 30 25 -5

Eisai 37 37 28 31 45 29 29 28 22 20 32 39 377 31 19 -12

Servier 31 29 34 39 34 31 31 23 30 27 34 37 380 32 41 +9

Daiichi Sankyo 35 42 35 42 26 33 36 37 35 36 27 21 405 33 42 +9

Menarini 32 31 29 33 30 39 39 36 33 33 40 35 410 34 30 -4

Astellas 29 33 42 27 39 42 32 33 31 34 44 41 427 35 40 +5

Teva 38 34 33 29 31 34 37 39 38 37 42 38 430 36 36 0

Grünenthal 36 39 40 38 41 36 33 35 39 42 22 32 433 37 33 -4

Acorda 40 43 37 43 37 35 43 29 36 39 36 20 438 38 28 -10

Vifor 44 36 44 41 43 25 34 38 41 35 29 42 452 39 - -

Vertex 42 41 41 28 47 26 38 44 47 40 33 33 460 40 26 -14

Sandoz 43 38 36 35 33 38 44 46 45 44 38 34 474 41 - -

Gedeon Richter 30 32 38 37 36 45 47 42 46 45 43 45 486 42 38 -4

Ferring 39 44 39 40 40 44 45 41 42 43 39 40 496 43 39 -4

Allergan 41 45 43 44 42 43 41 40 40 38 45 36 498 44 37 -7

Pierre Fabre 45 40 45 46 32 47 35 45 37 41 46 45 504 45 43 -2

Bial 46 48 47 48 46 41 46 43 43 46 41 45 540 46 44 -2

Mundipharma 48 46 46 45 44 48 48 48 44 46 48 44 555 47 45 -2

Almirall 47 47 48 47 48 46 40 47 48 46 47 45 556 48 46 -2




PA

GE

36


Global edition

RANKINGS OF INDIVIDUAL PHARMA COMPANIES

11

AMONG PATIENT GROUPS THAT WORK/PARTNER WITH THE COMPANIES

2019 rankings for each indicator of corporate reputation, high to low—compared with 2018

Final 2019 overall rankings, A to Z, high to low—compared with 2018 Note: Rankings based on scores calculated to three decimal places


PA

GE


Global edition

According to patient groups that work/partner with the company

INDICATOR 1. Companies with the MOST-EFFECTIVE PATIENT-CENTRED STRATEGY


2018 2019



Novo Nordisk 49.5% 3 Gilead 52.1% 3

UCB 47.0% 4 AbbVie 50.9% 4


Lundbeck 46.2% 5 Pfizer 45.0% 6

Grünenthal 45.8% 7 Novo Nordisk 43.5% 7

Janssen 45.7% 8 Janssen 42.1% 8

Novartis 45.1% 9 Takeda/Shire 39.0% 9

Roche/Genentech 44.8% 10 AstraZeneca 37.3% 10

LEO Pharma 43.6% 11 Lundbeck 35.4% 11

Takeda/Shire 41.6% 12 Boehringer Ingelheim 35.1% 12

Chiesi 38.1% 13 UCB 32.3% 13

Pfizer 37.0% 14 Sanofi 30.8% 14

Daiichi Sankyo 35.3% 15 GSK 30.7% 15

Biogen 33.8% 16 CSL Behring 30.0% 16

Acorda 33.3% 17 Celgene 27.9% 17


Sanofi 33.3% 17 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 25.8% 19

Boehringer Ingelheim 32.9% 20 Chiesi 25.7% 20

Eisai 32.5% 21 Merck & Co/MSD 24.1% 21

CSL Behring 30.0% 22 Astellas 23.5% 22

Allergan 29.4% 23 Bayer 22.7% 23

GSK 29.1% 24 Eli Lilly 22.5% 24

Vertex 28.6% 25 LEO Pharma 22.2% 25

Ipsen 27.1% 26 Biogen 21.9% 26

Amgen 27.0% 27 Otsuka 21.6% 27

Bayer 26.9% 28 Grifols 21.3% 28

Bristol Myers Squibb 26.1% 29 Octapharma 21.2% 29

Celgene 25.6% 30 Acorda 20.8% 30

Eli Lilly 25.5% 31 Allergan 20.0% 31

Bial 25.0% 32 Ipsen 19.7% 32

Gedeon Richter 25.0% 32 Daiichi Sankyo 19.2% 33


Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 23.2% 35 Menarini 17.8% 35

Octapharma 22.2% 36 Teva 17.2% 36

Merck & Co/MSD 22.0% 37 Amgen 16.8% 37

Menarini 20.6% 38 Ferring 15.2% 38

AstraZeneca 16.8% 39 Grünenthal 15.2% 38

Ferring 16.1% 40 Eisai 12.5% 40


Grifols 11.5% 42 Pierre Fabre 10.2% 42

Teva 9.6% 43 Vertex 10.0% 43

Servier 8.9% 44 Gedeon Richter 8.8% 44


Almirall 0.0% 46 Vifor 4.8% 46

Almirall 3.1% 47

Mundipharma 2.4% 48


PA

GE

38


Global edition


INDICATOR 2. Companies providing the BEST HIGH-QUALITY PATIENT INFORMATION


2018 2019


Novo Nordisk 45.7% 2 Roche/Genentech 48.8% 2



AbbVie 42.2% 5 Novo Nordisk 42.6% 5

Grünenthal 41.7% 6 AbbVie 40.2% 6

Novartis 41.2% 7 Janssen 39.9% 7


Janssen 39.4% 9 Takeda/Shire 32.9% 9

Takeda/Shire 35.5% 10 AstraZeneca 31.9% 10


LEO Pharma 34.2% 12 CSL Behring 30.0% 12

Pfizer 31.9% 13 Sanofi 28.9% 13

Sanofi 30.3% 14 Chiesi 25.7% 14

Boehringer Ingelheim 28.8% 15 GSK 25.5% 15

Acorda 27.3% 16 Lundbeck 24.2% 16

Biogen 27.1% 17 UCB 22.4% 17

Allergan 26.0% 18 Biogen 21.9% 18

Chiesi 25.0% 19 Bayer 21.3% 19

Vertex 25.0% 19 Bristol Myers Squibb 21.2% 20


Ipsen 23.4% 22 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 20.2% 22

Eli Lilly 22.9% 23 Eli Lilly 19.7% 23

Otsuka 22.9% 24 Grifols 19.1% 24


Amgen 22.6% 26 Otsuka 17.6% 26

GSK 21.9% 27 Celgene 17.5% 27

Eisai 21.1% 28 Octapharma 17.3% 28

Celgene 20.0% 29 Ipsen 17.2% 29

Astellas 18.8% 30 Menarini 15.2% 30

Bial 18.2% 31 Amgen 14.9% 31


AstraZeneca 17.4% 33 Ferring 13.6% 33



Merck & Co/MSD 16.0% 36 Allergan 12.7% 36

Gedeon Richter 12.5% 37 Acorda 12.5% 37

Menarini 12.5% 37 Servier 12.3% 38


Pierre Fabre 10.5% 40 Eisai 9.5% 40

CSL Behring 10.3% 41 Teva 8.7% 41

Teva 9.8% 42 Pierre Fabre 8.2% 42

Servier 9.1% 43 Daiichi Sankyo 7.7% 43

Mundipharma 7.1% 44 Gedeon Richter 5.9% 44


Octapharma 0.0% 46 Mundipharma 2.4% 46

Bial 0.0% 47

Almirall 0.0% 47


PA

GE

39


Global edition


INDICATOR 3. Companies with the BEST RECORD ON PATIENT SAFETY


2018 2019



AbbVie 31.1% 3 Novo Nordisk 33.7% 3

Novo Nordisk 30.8% 4 AbbVie 31.8% 4



Janssen 29.0% 7 Gilead 28.4% 7

Octapharma 28.0% 8 CSL Behring 28.3% 8


Pfizer 25.4% 10 Boehringer Ingelheim 25.3% 10

CSL Behring 25.0% 11 Takeda/Shire 22.2% 11

LEO Pharma 24.3% 12 Biogen 22.1% 12

Takeda/Shire 23.7% 13 GSK 21.1% 13

Bayer 23.3% 14 Sanofi 20.7% 14

UCB 23.0% 15 Ipsen 19.3% 15



Allergan 20.0% 18 Grifols 17.4% 18

Ipsen 20.0% 18 UCB 17.2% 19

Sanofi 19.5% 20 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 16.7% 20

Otsuka 19.4% 21 Bayer 16.2% 21

Menarini 18.8% 22 Lundbeck 14.8% 22

Acorda 18.2% 23 Chiesi 14.3% 23

Grünenthal 17.4% 24 Eli Lilly 14.3% 23


Biogen 16.2% 26 Celgene 13.8% 26

GSK 15.5% 27 Eisai 13.8% 27

Bristol Myers Squibb 15.4% 28 Octapharma 13.5% 28



Vertex 14.3% 31 Amgen 12.0% 31

Amgen 13.8% 32 Otsuka 12.0% 32

Daiichi Sankyo 13.3% 33 Menarini 11.4% 33

Ferring 13.3% 33 Ferring 11.4% 33

Celgene 12.6% 35 Daiichi Sankyo 9.8% 35

Grifols 12.5% 36 Allergan 9.3% 36


Teva 11.7% 38 Sandoz 8.5% 38

Servier 11.6% 39 Servier 7.9% 39

Merck & Co/MSD 10.9% 40 Teva 7.9% 40

Gedeon Richter 6.7% 41 Pierre Fabre 4.2% 41

Pierre Fabre 5.3% 42 Astellas 4.1% 42

Mundipharma 3.6% 43 Vertex 3.4% 43

Chiesi 0.0% 44 Gedeon Richter 3.1% 44



Bial 0.0% 46

Almirall 0.0% 46


PA

GE

40


Global edition


INDICATOR 4. Companies with the MOST-USEFUL HIGH-QUALITY PRODUCTS


2018 2019

ViiV Healthcare 55.7% 1 Gilead 51.2% 1

Gilead 51.9% 2 ViiV Healthcare 51.0% 2


Roche/Genentech 38.0% 4 Novo Nordisk 44.0% 4



Vertex 35.0% 7 Janssen 39.5% 7


CSL Behring 33.3% 9 AstraZeneca 30.6% 9

Lundbeck 32.7% 10 Biogen 30.2% 10

Takeda/Shire 31.8% 11 CSL Behring 28.8% 11

UCB 31.3% 12 Takeda/Shire 28.0% 12

Amgen 29.5% 13 Merck & Co/MSD 27.9% 13

Sanofi 28.9% 14 GSK 27.6% 14

Pfizer 28.6% 15 Boehringer Ingelheim 27.2% 15

Boehringer Ingelheim 26.2% 16 Chiesi 25.7% 16

LEO Pharma 25.6% 17 Sanofi 24.3% 17

Celgene 24.7% 18 Lundbeck 24.2% 18

GSK 24.5% 19 Ipsen 23.7% 19

Biogen 23.9% 20 Bayer 23.4% 20

Ferring 22.6% 21 Otsuka 21.6% 21


Bayer 21.7% 23 Eli Lilly 21.2% 23

Allergan 21.6% 24 Octapharma 21.2% 24



Ipsen 20.8% 27 UCB 19.6% 27

Grünenthal 20.8% 27 Menarini 17.4% 28


Merck & Co/MSD 20.6% 30 Grifols 15.2% 30

Daiichi Sankyo 18.8% 31 Celgene 15.2% 30

AstraZeneca 18.6% 32 Eisai 14.1% 32

Eisai 18.4% 33 Sandoz 13.9% 33


Astellas 15.9% 35 Allergan 13.0% 35

Menarini 15.2% 36 Acorda 12.5% 36

Octapharma 14.8% 37 LEO Pharma 11.3% 37

Chiesi 14.3% 38 Teva 11.0% 38

Gedeon Richter 13.3% 39 Servier 10.9% 39

Pierre Fabre 10.5% 40 Ferring 10.9% 40

Bial 10.0% 41 Vertex 10.0% 41

Acorda 8.3% 42 Gedeon Richter 9.1% 42

Grifols 7.7% 43 Daiichi Sankyo 7.7% 43

Teva 7.3% 44 Pierre Fabre 6.1% 44


Mundipharma 3.6% 46 Almirall 3.2% 46

Mundipharma 2.4% 47

Vifor 0.0% 48


PA

GE

41


Global edition


INDICATOR 5i. Companies with the BEST RECORD OF TRANSPARENCY ON PRICING


2018 2019



Roche/Genentech 19.5% 3 Chiesi 20.0% 3

Gilead 17.5% 4 AbbVie 19.4% 4

UCB 17.5% 5 Janssen 17.8% 5


Allergan 16.0% 7 Novartis 16.6% 7

Pfizer 15.5% 8 Gilead 15.3% 8

Takeda/Shire 15.4% 9 Novo Nordisk 15.2% 9

Novartis 15.1% 10 Takeda/Shire 14.4% 10

Vertex 14.3% 11 CSL Behring 13.8% 11

Sanofi 13.7% 12 Merck & Co/MSD 13.5% 12

Lundbeck 13.5% 13 Bayer 13.3% 13

Ferring 13.3% 14 GSK 10.9% 14

Daiichi Sankyo 13.3% 14 Sanofi 10.7% 15


Novo Nordisk 12.9% 17 Otsuka 10.2% 17

Grünenthal 12.5% 18 Bristol Myers Squibb 9.5% 18

Gedeon Richter 12.5% 18 AstraZeneca 9.2% 19

Bayer 12.2% 20 Acorda 8.7% 20


Otsuka 11.1% 21 LEO Pharma 8.0% 22

Octapharma 11.1% 21 Lundbeck 7.9% 23

GSK 11.0% 24 Daiichi Sankyo 7.8% 24

AstraZeneca 11.0% 25 Biogen 7.6% 25

Bristol Myers Squibb 10.7% 26 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 7.4% 26

CSL Behring 10.7% 27 Sandoz 7.1% 27

Ipsen 10.6% 28 Menarini 6.8% 28

Celgene 10.1% 29 Grifols 6.8% 28

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 9.8% 30 Grünenthal 6.7% 30

Servier 9.1% 31 Amgen 6.4% 31

Eli Lilly 9.0% 32 Servier 6.3% 32

Amgen 9.0% 33 Pierre Fabre 6.3% 33

Astellas 8.7% 34 Celgene 6.2% 34

Eisai 8.1% 35 Teva 5.9% 35

Mundipharma 7.4% 36 UCB 5.4% 36

Almirall 7.1% 37 Astellas 5.3% 37

Teva 6.3% 38 Ipsen 5.2% 38

Merck & Co/MSD 5.9% 39 Ferring 4.4% 39

Menarini 5.9% 40 Octapharma 4.0% 40

Pierre Fabre 5.6% 41 Allergan 3.8% 41

Chiesi 5.3% 42 Vertex 3.4% 42

LEO Pharma 5.1% 43 Gedeon Richter 3.1% 43


Acorda 0.0% 44 Eisai 1.7% 45

Grifols 0.0% 44 Bial 0.0% 46

Almirall 0.0% 46

Vifor 0.0% 46


PA

GE

42


Global edition


INDICATOR 5ii. Companies with the BEST RECORD OF TRANSPARENCY ON CLINICAL DATA


2018 2019



Vertex 23.8% 3 Gilead 25.3% 3




Novo Nordisk 19.6% 7 AstraZeneca 18.1% 7

Lundbeck 19.2% 8 Janssen 18.1% 8


Grünenthal 17.4% 10 Chiesi 17.1% 10

AbbVie 17.0% 11 Biogen 16.8% 11

UCB 16.7% 12 Novo Nordisk 16.2% 12

Acorda 16.7% 12 GSK 14.0% 13


Eli Lilly 14.9% 15 Bayer 13.2% 15

AstraZeneca 14.7% 16 Eli Lilly 13.2% 16

Sanofi 14.5% 17 Lundbeck 12.9% 17

Otsuka 13.9% 18 CSL Behring 11.9% 18

Servier 13.6% 19 Eisai 11.7% 19

Ferring 13.3% 20 Merck & Co/MSD 11.1% 20


GSK 13.2% 22 Bristol Myers Squibb 10.9% 22

Bristol Myers Squibb 13.0% 23 Takeda/Shire 10.3% 23

Pfizer 12.7% 24 Octapharma 9.8% 24

Celgene 12.5% 25 Amgen 9.5% 25

Bayer 12.2% 26 Ipsen 8.5% 26

Allergan 12.0% 27 Acorda 8.3% 27

Grifols 12.0% 27 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 8.3% 27

Amgen 11.6% 29 Servier 7.9% 29

CSL Behring 10.7% 30 Daiichi Sankyo 7.7% 30

Ipsen 10.6% 31 Vertex 6.7% 31

Eisai 8.3% 32 Otsuka 6.3% 32

Mundipharma 7.7% 33 Celgene 6.0% 33

Daiichi Sankyo 6.7% 34 Teva 5.6% 34

Merck & Co/MSD 6.5% 35 Vifor 4.8% 35


Gedeon Richter 6.3% 37 Sandoz 4.2% 37

Teva 6.3% 37 Astellas 3.9% 38

Menarini 5.9% 39 Allergan 3.7% 39

Pierre Fabre 5.6% 40 Almirall 3.2% 40

Chiesi 5.0% 41 Menarini 2.3% 41

Octapharma 3.7% 42 Grifols 2.3% 41

LEO Pharma 2.7% 43 Ferring 2.3% 41

Astellas 2.1% 44 Pierre Fabre 2.1% 44

Almirall 0.0% 45 LEO Pharma 1.9% 45

Bial 0.0% 45 Gedeon Richter 0.0% 46

Mundipharma 0.0% 46

Bial 0.0% 46


PA

GE

43


Global edition


INDICATOR 5iii. Companies with the BEST RECORD OF TRANSPARENCY ON

FUNDING EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS Ordered high to low (percentage; rank)

2018 2019




Roche/Genentech 24.5% 4 Roche/Genentech 26.3% 4


Pfizer 21.8% 6 CSL Behring 23.7% 6


Takeda/Shire 20.3% 8 Novartis 21.8% 8

CSL Behring 20.0% 9 Novo Nordisk 17.1% 9

Gedeon Richter 20.0% 9 Takeda/Shire 16.2% 10

Lundbeck 19.2% 11 GSK 16.2% 11


Novo Nordisk 17.2% 13 Boehringer Ingelheim 14.6% 13

Sanofi 16.1% 14 Bayer 14.6% 14

Bayer 14.9% 15 Sanofi 14.2% 15

Eli Lilly 14.4% 16 Biogen 13.8% 16

GSK 14.0% 17 Merck & Co/MSD 13.7% 17

Eisai 13.9% 18 Eli Lilly 13.0% 18

Celgene 13.5% 19 Bristol Myers Squibb 11.9% 19

Daiichi Sankyo 13.3% 20 LEO Pharma 11.5% 20

Bristol Myers Squibb 13.2% 21 Chiesi 11.4% 21

Boehringer Ingelheim 12.5% 22 AstraZeneca 11.4% 22

Merck & Co/MSD 12.5% 22 Lundbeck 11.3% 23

Grifols 12.0% 24 Grifols 11.1% 24

UCB 11.5% 25 Grünenthal 10.9% 25

Otsuka 11.1% 26 Celgene 10.8% 26

Pierre Fabre 11.1% 26 Vertex 10.3% 27

Ipsen 10.9% 28 Octapharma 9.8% 28

Ferring 10.0% 29 UCB 9.7% 29

Chiesi 10.0% 29 Amgen 9.2% 30

Servier 9.3% 31 Otsuka 8.3% 31

Grünenthal 9.1% 32 Astellas 8.2% 32

Menarini 8.8% 33 Teva 8.0% 33

Biogen 8.5% 34 Servier 6.3% 34



Teva 7.6% 37 Allergan 5.7% 37


AstraZeneca 4.9% 39 Vifor 4.8% 39


Astellas 4.3% 41 Sandoz 4.2% 41

Mundipharma 3.6% 42 Acorda 4.2% 42

Acorda 0.0% 43 Ipsen 3.4% 43

Octapharma 0.0% 43 Almirall 3.2% 44

Almirall 0.0% 43 Ferring 0.0% 45

Bial 0.0% 43 Gedeon Richter 0.0% 45

Mundipharma 0.0% 45

Bial 0.0% 45


PA

GE

44


Global edition


INDICATOR 6. Companies with the MOST INTEGRITY


2018 2019



Lundbeck 31.4% 3 AbbVie 34.7% 3

UCB 31.1% 4 Pfizer 30.8% 4

Roche/Genentech 30.7% 5 Lundbeck 30.6% 5

Novo Nordisk 30.4% 6 Janssen 30.6% 6

Chiesi 28.6% 7 Gilead 29.4% 7


Gilead 26.5% 9 Novo Nordisk 26.2% 9

Novartis 26.4% 10 Boehringer Ingelheim 26.0% 10


Acorda 25.0% 12 AstraZeneca 24.1% 12



Eisai 24.3% 15 UCB 18.8% 15

Eli Lilly 22.2% 16 Otsuka 18.8% 15

Sanofi 21.6% 17 CSL Behring 18.6% 17

Bristol Myers Squibb 21.3% 18 Eisai 18.6% 17

Pierre Fabre 21.1% 19 Chiesi 17.6% 19

Allergan 20.4% 20 Merck & Co/MSD 17.4% 20

GSK 20.1% 21 Bayer 16.5% 21

LEO Pharma 20.0% 22 Celgene 16.2% 22

Ipsen 19.6% 23 Bristol Myers Squibb 16.0% 23

Amgen 18.7% 24 Servier 15.9% 24

Grünenthal 17.4% 25 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 15.6% 25

CSL Behring 17.2% 26 LEO Pharma 15.4% 26

Biogen 16.9% 27 Ipsen 14.0% 27

Celgene 16.7% 28 Eli Lilly 14.0% 28

Otsuka 16.7% 28 Grünenthal 13.3% 29


Bayer 16.1% 31 Biogen 11.6% 31

Merck & Co/MSD 16.0% 32 Amgen 11.0% 32

Octapharma 14.8% 33 Octapharma 9.8% 33

Ferring 13.3% 34 Astellas 9.1% 34

Daiichi Sankyo 12.5% 35 Allergan 9.1% 34


Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 10.8% 37 Daiichi Sankyo 8.0% 37

AstraZeneca 10.4% 38 Grifols 7.0% 38

Vertex 10.0% 39 Teva 6.8% 39


Grifols 7.7% 41 Bial 5.9% 41

Servier 6.8% 42 Vifor 5.0% 42


Teva 6.2% 44 Sandoz 4.3% 44


Almirall 0.0% 46 Almirall 3.3% 46

Mundipharma 2.6% 47



PA

GE

45


Global edition


INDICATOR 7. Companies with the BEST PATIENT-GROUP RELATIONSHIPS


2018 2019




UCB 48.4% 4 AbbVie 47.9% 4

Vertex 47.6% 5 Novo Nordisk 47.3% 5

Novo Nordisk 47.3% 6 Pfizer 47.3% 6



Novartis 44.3% 9 CSL Behring 40.7% 9

Lundbeck 44.2% 10 Takeda/Shire 38.1% 10

Roche/Genentech 44.0% 11 AstraZeneca 34.0% 11

Pfizer 39.4% 12 Lundbeck 33.8% 12

LEO Pharma 37.5% 13 Boehringer Ingelheim 30.9% 13

Grünenthal 34.8% 14 GSK 30.1% 14

Sanofi 34.7% 15 Sanofi 29.7% 15

Ipsen 34.0% 16 Chiesi 29.4% 16

Chiesi 33.3% 17 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 29.4% 17

CSL Behring 33.3% 17 UCB 28.1% 18

Otsuka 30.6% 19 Biogen 26.6% 19


Amgen 30.2% 21 Bayer 24.3% 21


Eisai 28.2% 23 Eli Lilly 24.1% 23


Bayer 26.5% 25 Celgene 23.4% 25

GSK 26.3% 26 Astellas 22.8% 26

Allergan 26.0% 27 Eisai 22.2% 27


Acorda 25.0% 29 Otsuka 22.0% 29

Eli Lilly 25.0% 29 Servier 20.6% 30

Gedeon Richter 25.0% 29 Allergan 20.0% 31


Celgene 24.2% 33 Acorda 17.4% 33

Merck & Co/MSD 21.1% 34 Ipsen 16.9% 34

Astellas 20.0% 35 LEO Pharma 15.7% 35


Menarini 17.6% 37 Octapharma 15.4% 37

Ferring 16.7% 38 Teva 13.3% 38


Grifols 15.4% 40 Pierre Fabre 12.5% 40

Daiichi Sankyo 11.8% 41 Daiichi Sankyo 11.8% 41

Servier 11.4% 42 Bial 11.8% 41

Mundipharma 10.7% 43 Ferring 8.9% 43


Teva 7.4% 45 Vertex 6.9% 45

Almirall 0.0% 46 Almirall 6.7% 46


Vifor 0.0% 48


PA

GE

46


Global edition


INDICATOR 8. Companies with the BEST RECORD FOR PROVIDING SERVICES

‘BEYOND THE PILL’ Ordered high to low (percentage; rank)

2018 2019




UCB 36.1% 4 AbbVie 38.5% 4

LEO Pharma 35.9% 5 Novo Nordisk 37.0% 5

AbbVie 35.7% 6 Janssen 35.3% 6




Takeda/Shire 29.6% 10 Chiesi 26.5% 10


Pfizer 29.1% 12 AstraZeneca 25.3% 12

Biogen 26.8% 13 Takeda/Shire 25.2% 13

GSK 23.7% 14 UCB 25.0% 14


Ferring 23.3% 15 CSL Behring 20.3% 16


Sanofi 23.2% 18 Bristol Myers Squibb 19.5% 18

Eli Lilly 21.8% 19 Astellas 19.2% 19

Pierre Fabre 21.1% 20 Servier 19.0% 20


Vertex 19.0% 22 Sanofi 17.9% 22

Eisai 18.4% 23 Grifols 17.8% 23

Daiichi Sankyo 17.6% 24 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 17.7% 24

Celgene 17.6% 25 Celgene 16.9% 25

Grünenthal 17.4% 26 Biogen 16.8% 26


Otsuka 17.1% 28 Octapharma 15.4% 28

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 17.0% 29 Eli Lilly 14.4% 29

Acorda 16.7% 30 Eisai 14.3% 30

Amgen 16.1% 31 LEO Pharma 13.5% 31

Menarini 14.7% 32 Bayer 13.4% 32

Chiesi 14.3% 33 Menarini 13.3% 33

Ipsen 13.0% 34 Amgen 13.2% 34

Allergan 12.5% 35 Acorda 13.0% 35

Gedeon Richter 12.5% 35 Allergan 12.7% 36

Astellas 12.5% 35 Teva 12.2% 37

Merck & Co/MSD 12.2% 38 Daiichi Sankyo 11.8% 38

Grifols 11.5% 39 Vifor 10.0% 39

AstraZeneca 11.0% 40 Ferring 9.1% 40

Teva 7.6% 41 Grünenthal 8.9% 41

Octapharma 7.4% 42 Pierre Fabre 8.3% 42

Servier 7.0% 43 Sandoz 7.1% 43


Bial 0.0% 45 Bial 0.0% 45

Almirall 0.0% 45 Mundipharma 0.0% 45

Almirall 0.0% 45



PA

GE

47


Global edition


INDICATOR 9i. Companies with the BEST RECORD FOR ENGAGING PATIENTS IN RESEARCH


2018 2019

Vertex 42.9% 1 ViiV Healthcare 25.5% 1

ViiV Healthcare 39.3% 2 Roche/Genentech 24.2% 2

UCB 30.0% 3 Novartis 22.1% 3

Grünenthal 21.7% 4 Boehringer Ingelheim 21.4% 4


Daiichi Sankyo 20.0% 6 Janssen 16.6% 6


Gilead 18.6% 8 Novo Nordisk 14.3% 8

Novartis 18.0% 9 GSK 13.7% 9

Boehringer Ingelheim 17.1% 10 Lundbeck 13.3% 10

AbbVie 16.7% 11 Gilead 13.3% 11

Acorda 16.7% 11 Ipsen 12.5% 12

Celgene 14.4% 13 Biogen 12.2% 13

Biogen 14.3% 14 AstraZeneca 11.6% 14


Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 14.1% 16 Otsuka 11.1% 16

Otsuka 13.9% 17 Bayer 11.0% 17


Novo Nordisk 13.3% 19 Bristol Myers Squibb 10.1% 19

Ipsen 13.0% 20 Vifor 10.0% 20

Pfizer 12.9% 21 UCB 9.9% 21

Gedeon Richter 12.5% 22 Takeda/Shire 9.8% 22

GSK 12.0% 23 Daiichi Sankyo 9.8% 23

Lundbeck 11.8% 24 Merck & Co/MSD 9.6% 24

Amgen 11.7% 25 Amgen 9.6% 25

Pierre Fabre 11.1% 26 Acorda 9.5% 26

Eli Lilly 10.7% 27 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 9.3% 27

Sanofi 10.6% 28 Celgene 9.2% 28


Allergan 10.2% 30 Eli Lilly 7.8% 30

Bristol Myers Squibb 9.5% 31 CSL Behring 6.8% 31

Merck & Co/MSD 8.1% 32 Servier 4.8% 32

Bayer 7.8% 33 Ferring 4.8% 32

AstraZeneca 7.7% 34 Teva 4.7% 34

CSL Behring 7.4% 35 Menarini 4.5% 35

Mundipharma 7.4% 35 Sandoz 4.3% 36

LEO Pharma 5.3% 37 Pierre Fabre 4.2% 37


Octapharma 3.8% 39 Allergan 3.7% 39

Teva 3.8% 40 Eisai 3.5% 40

Menarini 2.9% 41 Mundipharma 2.6% 41

Eisai 2.8% 42 Grifols 2.3% 42

Servier 2.4% 43 Octapharma 2.0% 43

Astellas 2.2% 44 LEO Pharma 2.0% 43

Bial 0.0% 45 Vertex 0.0% 45


Almirall 0.0% 45



PA

GE

48


Global edition


INDICATOR 9ii. Companies with the BEST RECORD FOR ENGAGING PATIENTS

IN DEVELOPMENT Ordered high to low (percentage; rank)

2018 2019

Vertex 38.1% 1 ViiV Healthcare 25.0% 1

ViiV Healthcare 30.5% 2 Roche/Genentech 22.0% 2

Grünenthal 21.7% 3 Novartis 17.3% 3

UCB 20.3% 4 Janssen 16.9% 4

Janssen 18.9% 5 Boehringer Ingelheim 15.8% 5

Daiichi Sankyo 18.8% 6 AbbVie 15.3% 6


Novartis 18.0% 8 Novo Nordisk 13.6% 8

Ferring 17.2% 9 Pfizer 13.1% 9

Gilead 17.0% 10 GSK 12.6% 10

Celgene 16.9% 11 AstraZeneca 12.2% 11

Acorda 16.7% 12 Biogen 12.1% 12


Takeda/Shire 15.4% 14 Bayer 11.5% 14

CSL Behring 14.3% 15 UCB 10.8% 15

Biogen 14.1% 16 CSL Behring 10.3% 16

Boehringer Ingelheim 12.7% 17 Gilead 10.3% 17

Pfizer 12.3% 18 Sanofi 9.5% 18

AbbVie 12.2% 19 Chiesi 9.4% 19

Novo Nordisk 12.2% 20 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 9.3% 20


Grifols 12.0% 22 Otsuka 9.1% 22

Bristol Myers Squibb 11.8% 23 Acorda 9.1% 22

Lundbeck 11.8% 24 LEO Pharma 8.2% 24

Otsuka 11.1% 25 Merck & Co/MSD 8.0% 25

Sanofi 10.0% 26 Takeda/Shire 7.8% 26

Eli Lilly 9.9% 27 Amgen 7.0% 27

GSK 9.6% 28 Bristol Myers Squibb 6.6% 28

Amgen 9.4% 29 Allergan 5.8% 29

Ipsen 8.5% 30 Ipsen 5.5% 30

Merck & Co/MSD 7.2% 31 Celgene 5.4% 31

Mundipharma 7.1% 32 Eli Lilly 4.4% 32

Bayer 6.8% 33 Teva 3.5% 33

Gedeon Richter 6.3% 34 Eisai 3.3% 34



AstraZeneca 5.8% 37 Astellas 2.8% 37

Eisai 5.4% 38 Ferring 2.4% 38

Teva 5.3% 39 Menarini 2.4% 39

Servier 5.3% 39 Grifols 2.3% 40

Chiesi 5.0% 41 Octapharma 2.0% 41

Octapharma 3.7% 42 Vifor 0.0% 42

Menarini 2.9% 43 Pierre Fabre 0.0% 42

Astellas 0.0% 44 Mundipharma 0.0% 42

Bial 0.0% 44 Vertex 0.0% 42


Almirall 0.0% 42



PA

GE

49


Global edition

RANKINGS OF INDIVIDUAL PHARMA COMPANIES AMONG PATIENT GROUPS THAT WORK/PARTNER WITH THE COMPANY, 2019 v. 2018, ordered A to Z



1 2 3 4 5i 5ii 5iii 6 7 8 9i 9ii

To

tal

Ran

k 2

019

Ran

k 2

018

Diffe

ren

ce

AbbVie 4 6 4 6 4 6 3 3 4 4 7 6 57 3 5 +2

Acorda 30 37 29 36 20 27 42 30 33 35 26 22 367 29 23 -6

Allergan 31 36 36 35 41 39 37 34 31 36 39 29 424 38 27 -11

Almirall 47 47 46 46 46 40 44 46 46 45 45 42 540 47 46 -1

Amgen 37 31 31 29 31 25 30 32 32 34 25 27 364 28 29 +1

Astellas 22 25 42 26 37 38 32 34 26 19 38 37 376 31 39 +8

AstraZeneca 10 10 16 9 19 7 22 12 11 12 14 11 153 10 35 +25

Bayer 23 19 21 20 13 15 14 21 21 32 17 14 230 18 22 +4

Bial 45 47 46 45 46 46 45 41 41 45 45 42 534 45 45 0

Biogen 26 18 12 10 25 11 16 31 19 26 13 12 219 17 16 -1



Celgene 17 27 26 30 34 33 26 22 25 25 28 31 324 26 25 -1

Chiesi 20 14 23 16 3 10 21 19 16 10 29 19 200 16 32 +16

CSL Behring 16 12 8 11 11 18 6 17 9 16 31 16 171 13 17 +4

Daiichi Sankyo 33 43 35 43 24 30 36 37 41 38 23 13 396 36 23 -13

Eisai 40 40 27 32 45 19 38 17 27 30 40 34 389 35 31 -4

Eli Lilly 24 23 23 23 21 16 18 28 23 29 30 32 290 23 21 -2

Ferring 38 33 33 40 39 41 45 43 43 40 32 38 465 41 28 -13

Gedeon Richter 44 44 44 42 43 46 45 48 47 45 45 42 535 46 34 -12

Gilead 3 3 7 1 8 3 2 7 2 3 11 17 67 5 2 -3

Grifols 28 24 18 30 28 41 24 38 20 23 42 40 356 27 40 +13

Grünenthal 38 35 37 34 30 36 25 29 36 41 15 21 377 32 12 -20

GSK 15 15 13 14 14 13 11 13 14 17 9 10 158 11 20 +9

Ipsen 32 29 15 19 38 26 43 27 34 15 12 30 320 25 30 +5

Janssen 8 7 9 7 5 8 7 6 8 6 6 4 81 7 3 -4

LEO Pharma 25 34 25 37 22 45 20 26 35 31 43 24 367 29 18 -11

Lundbeck 11 16 22 18 23 17 23 5 12 9 10 7 173 14 9 -5

Menarini 35 30 33 28 28 41 40 39 27 33 35 39 408 37 41 +4

Merck & Co/MSD 21 21 17 13 12 20 17 20 24 21 24 25 235 19 35 +16


Mundipharma 48 46 45 47 44 46 45 47 44 45 41 42 540 47 43 -4

Novartis 5 4 5 5 7 4 8 8 7 7 3 3 66 4 6 +2

Novo Nordisk 7 5 3 4 9 12 9 9 5 5 8 8 84 8 7 -1

Octapharma 29 28 28 24 40 24 28 33 37 28 43 41 383 33 38 +5

Otsuka 27 26 32 21 17 32 31 15 29 27 16 22 295 24 19 -5

Pfizer 6 8 6 8 6 5 5 4 6 8 5 9 76 6 11 +5

Pierre Fabre 42 42 41 44 33 44 35 36 40 42 37 42 478 42 37 -5

Roche/Genentech 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 28 2 4 +2

Sandoz 41 32 38 33 27 37 41 44 39 43 36 36 447 40 - -

Sanofi 14 13 14 17 15 21 15 14 15 22 18 18 196 15 15 0

Servier 34 38 39 39 32 29 34 24 30 20 32 35 386 34 42 +8

Takeda/Shire 9 9 11 12 10 23 10 11 10 13 22 26 166 12 10 -2

Teva 36 41 40 38 35 34 33 39 38 37 34 33 438 39 43 +4

UCB 13 17 19 27 36 14 29 15 18 14 21 15 238 20 8 -12

Vertex 43 39 43 41 42 31 27 45 45 44 45 42 487 43 13 -30

Vifor 46 45 46 48 46 35 39 42 48 39 20 42 496 44 - -

ViiV Healthcare 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 0


PA

GE

50


Global edition

RANKINGS OF INDIVIDUAL PHARMA COMPANIES AMONG PATIENT GROUPS THAT WORK/PARTNER WITH THE COMPANY, 2019 v. 2018, ordered high to low



1 2 3 4 5i 5ii 5iii 6 7 8 9i 9ii

To

tal

Ran

k 2

019

Ran

k 2

018

Diffe

ren

ce

ViiV Healthcare 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 0

Roche/Genentech 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 28 2 4 +2

AbbVie 4 6 4 6 4 6 3 3 4 4 7 6 57 3 5 +2

Novartis 5 4 5 5 7 4 8 8 7 7 3 3 66 4 6 +2

Gilead 3 3 7 1 8 3 2 7 2 3 11 17 67 5 2 -3

Pfizer 6 8 6 8 6 5 5 4 6 8 5 9 76 6 11 +5

Janssen 8 7 9 7 5 8 7 6 8 6 6 4 81 7 3 -4

Novo Nordisk 7 5 3 4 9 12 9 9 5 5 8 8 84 8 7 -1


AstraZeneca 10 10 16 9 19 7 22 12 11 12 14 11 153 10 35 +25

GSK 15 15 13 14 14 13 11 13 14 17 9 10 158 11 20 +9

Takeda/Shire 9 9 11 12 10 23 10 11 10 13 22 26 166 12 10 -2

CSL Behring 16 12 8 11 11 18 6 17 9 16 31 16 171 13 17 +4

Lundbeck 11 16 22 18 23 17 23 5 12 9 10 7 173 14 9 -5

Sanofi 14 13 14 17 15 21 15 14 15 22 18 18 196 15 15 0

Chiesi 20 14 23 16 3 10 21 19 16 10 29 19 200 16 32 +16

Biogen 26 18 12 10 25 11 16 31 19 26 13 12 219 17 16 -1

Bayer 23 19 21 20 13 15 14 21 21 32 17 14 230 18 22 +4

Merck & Co/MSD 21 21 17 13 12 20 17 20 24 21 24 25 235 19 35 +16

UCB 13 17 19 27 36 14 29 15 18 14 21 15 238 20 8 -12



Eli Lilly 24 23 23 23 21 16 18 28 23 29 30 32 290 23 21 -2

Otsuka 27 26 32 21 17 32 31 15 29 27 16 22 295 24 19 -5

Ipsen 32 29 15 19 38 26 43 27 34 15 12 30 320 25 30 +5

Celgene 17 27 26 30 34 33 26 22 25 25 28 31 324 26 25 -1

Grifols 28 24 18 30 28 41 24 38 20 23 42 40 356 27 40 +13

Amgen 37 31 31 29 31 25 30 32 32 34 25 27 364 28 29 +1

Acorda 30 37 29 36 20 27 42 30 33 35 26 22 367 29 23 -6

LEO Pharma 25 34 25 37 22 45 20 26 35 31 43 24 367 29 18 -11

Astellas 22 25 42 26 37 38 32 34 26 19 38 37 376 31 39 +8

Grünenthal 38 35 37 34 30 36 25 29 36 41 15 21 377 32 12 -20

Octapharma 29 28 28 24 40 24 28 33 37 28 43 41 383 33 38 +5

Servier 34 38 39 39 32 29 34 24 30 20 32 35 386 34 42 +8

Eisai 40 40 27 32 45 19 38 17 27 30 40 34 389 35 31 -4

Daiichi Sankyo 33 43 35 43 24 30 36 37 41 38 23 13 396 36 23 -13

Menarini 35 30 33 28 28 41 40 39 27 33 35 39 408 37 41 +4

Allergan 31 36 36 35 41 39 37 34 31 36 39 29 424 38 27 -11

Teva 36 41 40 38 35 34 33 39 38 37 34 33 438 39 43 +4

Sandoz 41 32 38 33 27 37 41 44 39 43 36 36 447 40 - -

Ferring 38 33 33 40 39 41 45 43 43 40 32 38 465 41 28 -13

Pierre Fabre 42 42 41 44 33 44 35 36 40 42 37 42 478 42 37 -5

Vertex 43 39 43 41 42 31 27 45 45 44 45 42 487 43 13 -30

Vifor 46 45 46 48 46 35 39 42 48 39 20 42 496 44 - -

Bial 45 47 46 45 46 46 45 41 41 45 45 42 534 45 45 0

Gedeon Richter 44 44 44 42 43 46 45 48 47 45 45 42 535 46 34 -12

Almirall 47 47 46 46 46 40 44 46 46 45 45 42 540 47 46 -1

Mundipharma 48 46 45 47 44 46 45 47 44 45 41 42 540 47 43 -4


PA

GE

51


Global edition

THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF PHARMA

—GLOBAL EDITION

48 COMPANIES, 2019 (v. 2018)

1


PA

GE

52


Global edition

PROFILES OF THE 48 COMPANIES:

1

COMPANY PAGE

AbbVie 54 Acorda Therapeutics 56 Allergan 58 Almirall 60 Amgen 62 Astellas Pharma 64 AstraZeneca 66 Bayer 68 Bial 70 Biogen 72 Boehringer Ingelheim 74 Bristol MyersSquibb 76 Celgene 78 Chiesi Farmaceutici 80 CSL Behring 82 Daiichi Sankyo 84 Eisai 86 Eli Lilly 88 Ferring 90 Gedeon Richter 92 Gilead Sciences (including Kite Pharma) 94 Grifols 96 Grünenthal 98 GSK 100 Ipsen 102 Janssen 104 LEO Pharma 106 Lundbeck 108 Menarini 110 Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 112 Merck & Co/MSD 114 Mundipharma 116 Novartis 118 Novo Nordisk 120 Octapharma 122 Otsuka 124 Pierre Fabre Laboratories 126 Pfizer 128 Roche (Genentech in the US) 130 Sandoz 132 Sanofi 134 Servier 136 Takeda (including Shire) 138 Teva 140 UCB 142 Vertex Pharmaceuticals 144 Vifor Pharma 146 ViiV Healthcare 148


PA

GE

53


Global edition

NOTE About the tiers Companies are allocated into tiers for their corporate reputation, as follows:

Rankings 1-16 = Top tier.

Rankings 17-32 = Middle tier.

Rankings 33-48 = Lower tier.

1ST PAGE:

Number of respondent patient groups familiar

with the company, 2019.

The number of respondent patient groups saying

that they had a working relationship with the

company, 2019.

The profile of the respondent patient groups

familiar with the company (specialties, and

geographic remit), 2019.

The types of relationships that the company had

with its patient-group partners, 2019.

The company’s performance at corporate

reputation in 2019 among respondent patient

groups familiar, and which partner/work, with the

company.

Competitors’ relationships in 2019 with the

respondent patient groups with which the

company partners/works.

2ND PAGE:

Overall rankings for the company, according to

respondent patient groups familiar with the

company, 2019 (v. 2018).


respondent patient groups that work with the

company, 2019 (v. 2018).

The company’s rankings for each of the 12

indicators, according to respondent patient

groups familiar, or working, with the company,

2019 (v. 2018).

Overall rankings among patient groups familiar

with the company, 2015-2019.

Snapshot view: where the company sits in the

corporate tiers for each of the 12 indicators (in

the higher, the middle, or the lower tier), as

assessed by respondent patient groups familiar

with the company, 2019.


corporate tiers for each of the 12 indicators (in

the higher, the middle, or the lower tier), as

assessed by respondent patient groups that

work with the company, 2019.

The company’s Net Promoter Score on the

‘Swingometer’, 2019.

The company’s Net Promoter Score. 2017-2019.



THE TWELVE INDICATORS OF CORPORATE REPUTATION, 2019 (v. 2018)


PA

GE

54


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, AbbVie

Percentage of patient groups that worked with AbbVie—and which worked with the following companies

Pfizer 59.2%

Novartis 54.7%

Janssen 52.4%

Roche 52.1%

Merck & Co/MSD 49.1%

Bristol Myers Squibb 35.2%

Sanofi 35.2%

GSK 33.7%

Eli Lilly 30.8%

Takeda/Shire 29.3%

Country headquarters of patient groups familiar with the company

• United States, 14.4% • Spain, 5.9% • Italy, 4.8% • United Kingdom, 4.1% • Canada, 4.0% • and others

Specialties of patient groups familiar with the company

• HIV/AIDS, 11.6% • Cancer: most/all types, 8.3% • Arthritis: most/all types, 6.1% • Rheumatoid arthritis, 6.1% • Cancer: blood, 5.2% • and others

Geographic remit of patient groups familiar with the company

• International, 8.8% • National, 67.8% • Large regional, 15.4% • Local, 7.2%

Types of relationship among patient groups working with the company

• Support for specific projects, 68.0% • Support for campaigns, 57.4% • Purely financial donations, 56.8% • Helping organise events, 52.1% • and others

708 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with AbbVie

338 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with AbbVie

ABBVIE

SCORES

Percentage of patient groups stating that the company was “Best” for an indicator Measured among patient groups familiar, and which worked, with the company


PA

GE

55


Global edition

ABBVIE—RANKINGS

Ranking in 2019 (out of 48 companies)

AbbVie’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 3rd (2018: 5th out of 46 companies)

AbbVie’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 3rd (2018: 5th out of 46 companies)

Overall rankings among patient groups familiar with the company, 2019 (v. 2018) Overall rankings among patient groups familiar with the company, 2015-2019

A snapshot of the rankings: in which tier of the corporate rankings (top, middle, or bottom) does the company sit for each of the 12 indicators of corporate reputation?

Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

3rd (2nd) 1. Patient centricity 4th (2nd)

3rd (2nd) 2. Patient information 6th (5th)

3rd (2nd) 3. Patient safety 4th (3rd)

5th (3rd) 4. High-quality products 6th (5th)

2nd (5th) 5i. Transparency: pricing 4th (6th)

5th (6th) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 6th (11th)

4th (3rd) 5iii. Transparency: funding 3rd (5th)

3rd (3rd) 6. Integrity 3rd (8th)

3rd (4th) 7. Quality of relationships 4th (7th)

3rd (2nd) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 4th (6th)

5th (7th) 9i. R&D: research 7th (11th)

4th (12th) 9ii. R&D: development 6th (19th)

AbbVie’s NPS over time

2019 +29.2%

2018 +20.3%

2017 +28.1%

AbbVie on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019


PA

GE

56


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Acorda

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Acorda—and which worked with the following companies

Lundbeck 76.0%

Daiichi Sankyo 64.0%

Menarini 64.0%

Otsuka 64.0%

UCB 64.0%

Almirall 60.0%

Bial 60.0%

Eisai 60.0%

Gedeon Richter 60.0%

Grifols 60.0%


• United States, 33.3% • Spain, 7.1% • Australia, 4.8% • Sweden, 4.8% • Belgium, 3.6% • and others


• HIV/AIDS, 7.1% • Arthritis: most/all types, 4.8% • Epilepsy, 4.8% • Multiple sclerosis, 4.8% • Parkinson's, 4.8% • and others




• Support for campaigns, 52.0% • Providing information, 44.0% • Helping organise events, 40.0% • Support for specific projects, 40.0% • and others

84 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Acorda

25 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Acorda

ACORDA

SCORES



PA

GE

57


Global edition

Acorda on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

ACORDA—RANKINGS


Acorda’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 38th (2018: 28th out of 46 companies)

Acorda’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 29th (2018: 23rd out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

40th (22nd) 1. Patient centricity 30th (17th)

43rd (35th) 2. Patient information 37th (16th)

37th (35th) 3. Patient safety 29th (23rd)

43rd (42nd) 4. High-quality products 36th (42nd)

37th (42nd) 5i. Transparency: pricing 20th (44th)


43rd (40th) 5iii. Transparency: funding 42nd (43rd)

29th (20th) 6. Integrity 30th (12th)

36th (29th) 7. Quality of relationships 33rd (29th)

39th (26th) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 35th (30th)


20th (8th) 9ii. R&D: development 22nd (12th)

Too few of Acorda’s patient-group partners responded to the 2019 survey to enable NPS calculations

about the company.


PA

GE

58


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Allergan

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Allergan—and which worked with the following companies

Novartis 57.9%

Bayer 49.1%

Amgen 47.4%

AstraZeneca 45.6%

Pfizer 43.9%

Eli Lilly 42.1%

GSK 42.1%

Boehringer Ingelheim 40.4%

Janssen 40.4%

Takeda/Shire 40.4%


• United States, 22.7% • Germany, 5.7% • Italy, 5.4% • Sweden, 5.4% • Spain, 4.8% • and others


• Cancer: most/all types, 7.5% • Cancer: breast, 5.7% • Arthritis: most/all types, 4.8% • Rare diseases, 4.8% • Visual impairment, 4.2% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 63.2% • Purely financial donations, 49.1% • Support for campaigns, 47.4% • Support for advocacy, 45.6% • and others

335 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Allergan

57 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Allergan

ALLERGAN

SCORES



PA

GE

59


Global edition

Allergan on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

ALLERGAN—RANKINGS


Allergan’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 44th (2018: 37th out of 46 companies)

Allergan’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 38th (2018: 27th out of 46 companies)

Allergan’s NPS over time

2019 -3.8%

2018 +3.1%

2017 +22.9%



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

41st (36th) 1. Patient centricity 31st (23rd)

45th (34th) 2. Patient information 36th (18th)

43rd (34th) 3. Patient safety 36th (18th)

44th (32nd) 4. High-quality products 35th (24th)

42nd (32nd) 5i. Transparency: pricing 41st (7th)

43rd (32nd) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 39th (27th)

41st (41st) 5iii. Transparency: funding 37th (35th)


40th (37th) 7. Quality of relationships 31st (27th)

38th (42nd) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 36th (35th)


36th (41st) 9ii. R&D: development 29th (35th)


PA

GE

60


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Almirall

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Almirall—and which worked with the following companies

Novartis 60.6%

Sanofi 57.6%

Biogen 51.5%

LEO Pharma 51.5%

Otsuka 51.5%

UCB 51.5%

Eli Lilly 48.5%

Grifols 48.5%

Menarini 48.5%

Pierre Fabre 48.5%


• Spain, 18.5% • United States, 9.6% • Germany, 8.3% • Italy, 7.0% • Portugal, 5.7% • and others


• Rare diseases, 6.4% • Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, 5.1% • Arthritis: most/all types, 4.5% • Chronic disease in general, 4.5% • Multiple sclerosis, 4.5% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 66.7% • Providing information, 48.5% • Support for campaigns, 48.5% • Helping organise events, 42.4% • and others

157 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Almirall

33 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Almirall

ALMIRALL

SCORES


0%

0%

0%


PA

GE

61


Global edition

Almirall on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

ALMIRALL—RANKINGS


Almirall’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 48th (2018: 46th out of 46 companies)

Almirall’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 47th (2018: 46th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

47th (46th) 1. Patient centricity 47th (46th)


48th (45th) 3. Patient safety 46th (44th)

47th (44th) 4. High-quality products 46th (45th)

48th (37th) 5i. Transparency: pricing 46th (37th)


40th (44th) 5iii. Transparency: funding 44th (43rd)


48th (46th) 7. Quality of relationships 46th (46th)




Too few of Almirall’s patient-group partners responded to the 2019 survey to enable NPS calculations

about the company.


PA

GE

62


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Amgen

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Amgen—and which worked with the following companies

Novartis 70.3%

Pfizer 65.3%

Roche 63.9%

Sanofi 55.4%

Janssen 54.5%

AstraZeneca 51.5%



AbbVie 46.0%

Eli Lilly 44.1%


• United States, 21.4% • Italy, 5.4% • Canada, 5.0% • Germany, 4.2% • Poland, 4.2% • and others


• Cancer: most/all types, 11.1% • Cancer: blood, 7.9% • Rare diseases, 6.2% • Cancer: breast, 4.8% • Cancer: lung, 4.2% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 70.8% • Purely financial donations, 54.0% • Support for campaigns, 53.0% • Providing information, 47.0% • and others

504 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Amgen

202 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Amgen

AMGEN

SCORES



PA

GE

63


Global edition

Amgen on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

AMGEN—RANKINGS


Amgen’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 24th (2018: 21st out of 46 companies)

Amgen’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 28th (2018: 29th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)


26th (23rd) 2. Patient information 31st (26th)

26th (27th) 3. Patient safety 31st (32nd)


27th (35th) 5i. Transparency: pricing 31st (33rd)

20th (23rd) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 25th (29th)

23rd (14th) 5iii. Transparency: funding 30th (12th)

27th (24th) 6. Integrity 32nd (24th)

25th (14th) 7. Quality of relationships 32nd (21st)

26th (21st) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 34th (31st)



Amgen’s NPS over time

2019 +2.4%

2018 -18.9%

2017 +15.3%


PA

GE

64


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Astellas

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Astellas—and which worked with the following companies

Novartis 61.4%

Pfizer 61.4%

AstraZeneca 54.2%

Sanofi 53.0%

Amgen 50.6%

Janssen 49.4%

Roche 48.2%


Eli Lilly 45.8%



• United States, 18.8% • Japan, 7.9% • Germany, 5.6% • Spain, 5.3% • Canada, 4.6% • and others


• Cancer: most/all types, 12.9% • Rare diseases, 5.9% • Transplants, 5.0% • Arthritis: most/all types, 4.3% • Cancer: blood, 4.3% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 55.4% • Purely financial donations, 54.2% • Providing information, 49.4% • Support for campaigns, 44.6% • and others

303 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Astellas

83 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Astellas

ASTELLAS

SCORES



PA

GE

65


Global edition

Astellas on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

ASTELLAS—RANKINGS


Astellas’ overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 35th (2018: 40th out of 46 companies)

Astellas’ overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 31st (2018: 39th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

29th (37th) 1. Patient centricity 22nd (34th)

33rd (36th) 2. Patient information 25th (30th)

42nd (38th) 3. Patient safety 42nd (30th)



42nd (41st) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 38th (44th)

32nd (38th) 5iii. Transparency: funding 32nd (41st)

33rd (34th) 6. Integrity 34th (28th)

31st (34th) 7. Quality of relationships 26th (35th)



41st (38th) 9ii. R&D: development 37th (44th)

Astellas’ NPS over time

2019 +4.7%

2018 +3.2%

2017 +11.8%


PA

GE

66


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, AstraZeneca

Percentage of patient groups that worked with AstraZeneca—and which worked with the following companies

Novartis 67.8%

Pfizer 65.1%

Roche 62.8%



Sanofi 44.6%

GSK 43.0%

Janssen 41.5%

Eli Lilly 41.1%

Amgen 40.3%


• United States, 15.5% • Sweden, 7.3% • United Kingdom, 6.1% • Italy, 5.7% • Spain, 4.5% • and others


• Cancer: most/all types, 9.3% • Cancer: breast, 5.8% • Diabetes, 5.1% • Rare diseases, 4.6% • Cancer: blood, 4.2% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 74.4% • Support for campaigns, 56.6% • Purely financial donations, 51.2% • Support for advocacy, 50.4% • and others

805 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with AstraZeneca

258 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with AstraZeneca

ASTRAZENECA

SCORES



PA

GE

67


Global edition

AstraZeneca on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

ASTRAZENECA—RANKINGS


AstraZeneca’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 13th (2018: 29th out of 46 companies)

AstraZeneca’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 10th (2018: 35th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

12th (31st) 1. Patient centricity 10th (39th)

12th (28th) 2. Patient information 10th (33rd)


13th (20th) 4. High-quality products 9th (32nd)


9th (21st) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 7th (16th)

19th (30th) 5iii. Transparency: funding 22nd (39th)


11th (31st) 7. Quality of relationships 11th (36th)




AstraZeneca’s NPS over time

2019 +10.2%

2018 -3.2%

2017 -14.3%


PA

GE

68


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Bayer

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Bayer—and which worked with the following companies

Pfizer 59.5%

Roche 57.9%

Novartis 54.5%

Sanofi 50.8%

AstraZeneca 38.4%

Janssen 36.8%

Takeda/Shire 35.1%


Amgen 30.6%



• United States, 12.1% • Italy, 6.7% • Germany, 6.4% • Spain, 6.3% • United Kingdom, 4.5% • and others


• Cancer: most/all types, 6.5% • Rare diseases, 6.1% • Diabetes, 5.5% • HIV/AIDS, 5.3% • Cancer: breast, 3.5% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 62.8% • Helping organise events, 52.5% • Support for campaigns, 48.8% • Purely financial donations, 46.3% • and others

1050 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Bayer

242 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Bayer

BAYER

SCORES



PA

GE

69


Global edition

Bayer on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

BAYER—RANKINGS


Bayer’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 19th (2018: 18th out of 46 companies)

Bayer’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 18th (2018: 22nd out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

22nd (16th) 1. Patient centricity 23rd (28th)

15th (15th) 2. Patient information 19th (21st)

20th (12th) 3. Patient safety 21st (14th)

19th (15th) 4. High-quality products 20th (23rd)



14th (21st) 5iii. Transparency: funding 14th (15th)

17th (26th) 6. Integrity 21st (31st)


32nd (25th) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 32nd (21st)

20th (27th) 9i. R&D: research 17th (33rd)

17th (29th) 9ii. R&D: development 14th (33rd)

Bayer’s NPS over time

2019 -2.1%

2018 -6.7%

2017 -7.4%


PA

GE

70


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Bial

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Bial—and which worked with the following companies

Menarini 81.0%

Acorda 71.4%


Eisai 71.4%

Grifols 71.4%

Otsuka 71.4%

Almirall 66.7%

Gedeon Richter 66.7%

Lundbeck 66.7%

UCB 66.7%


• Portugal, 31.3% • United States, 11.6% • Spain, 8.9% • Italy, 4.5% • United Kingdom, 4.5% • and others


• Rare diseases, 8.9% • HIV/AIDS, 7.1% • Arthritis: most/all types, 5.4% • Chronic disease in general, 5.4% • Cancer: breast, 4.5% • and others




• Support for campaigns, 52.4% • Helping organise events, 42.9% • Support for specific projects, 38.1% • Providing information, 28.6% • and others

112 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Bial

21 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Bial

BIAL

SCORES



PA

GE

71


Global edition

BIAL—RANKINGS


Bial’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 46th (2018: 44th out of 46 companies)

Bial’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 45th (2018: 45th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

46th (39th) 1. Patient centricity 45th (32nd)

48th (41st) 2. Patient information 47th (31st)


48th (46th) 4. High-quality products 45th (41st)


41st (43rd) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 46th (45th)

46th (42nd) 5iii. Transparency: funding 45th (43rd)

43rd (40th) 6. Integrity 41st (36th)

43rd (39th) 7. Quality of relationships 41st (44th)


41st (44th) 9i. R&D: research 45th (45th)

45th (42nd) 9ii. R&D: development 42nd (44th)

Too few of Bial’s patient-group partners responded

to the 2019 survey to enable NPS calculations

about the company.

Bial on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019


PA

GE

72


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Biogen

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Biogen—and which worked with the following companies

Roche 71.7%

Novartis 61.6%

Sanofi 56.6%

Pfizer 51.5%

Bayer 43.4%

AbbVie 41.4%

GSK 36.4%

Takeda/Shire 36.4%

Janssen 35.4%

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono 33.3%


• United States, 18.6% • Italy, 7.8% • Spain, 5.1% • Germany, 4.2% • United Kingdom, 4.2% • and others


• Multiple sclerosis, 8.0% • Rare diseases, 7.8% • Cancer: most/all types, 6.4% • Cancer: blood, 4.2% • Arthritis: most/all types, 4.0% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 67.7% • Providing information, 53.5% • Helping organise events, 49.5% • Support for advocacy, 49.5% • and others

451 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Biogen

99 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Biogen

BIOGEN

SCORES



PA

GE

73


Global edition

Biogen on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

BIOGEN—RANKINGS


Biogen’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 21st (2018: 17th out of 46 companies)

Biogen’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 17th (2018: 16th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

25th (21st) 1. Patient centricity 26th (16th)


18th (21st) 3. Patient safety 12th (26th)




20th (27th) 5iii. Transparency: funding 16th (34th)

34th (22nd) 6. Integrity 31st (27th)

24th (22nd) 7. Quality of relationships 19th (22nd)

21st (20th) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 26th (13th)

12th (22nd) 9i. R&D: research 13th (14th)


Biogen’s NPS over time

2019 -13.1%

2018 +4.3%

2017 +23.3%


PA

GE

74


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Boehringer Ingelheim

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Boehringer Ingelheim—and which worked with the following companies

Novartis 56.0%

Pfizer 54.5%

Roche 53.5%

AstraZeneca 52.0%


Sanofi 45.0%

Janssen 42.5%


Eli Lilly 39.0%

Bayer 37.0%


• United States, 12.5% • Germany, 8.0% • Spain, 7.3% • Italy, 7.0% • France, 4.7% • and others


• Diabetes, 6.2% • Cancer: most/all types, 6.0% • Rare diseases, 5.2% • Cancer: lung, 4.1% • Arthritis: most/all types, 3.6% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 67.0% • Support for campaigns, 53.0% • Providing information, 50.0% • Purely financial donations, 46.0% • and others

615 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Boehringer Ingelheim

200 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Boehringer Ingelheim

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM

SCORES



PA

GE

75


Global edition

Boehringer Ingelheim on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM—RANKINGS


Boehringer’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 11th (2018: 15th out of 46 companies)

Boehringer’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 9th (2018: 14th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)




15th (21st) 4. High-quality products 15th (16th)

13th (18th) 5i. Transparency: pricing 16th (21st)


13th (16th) 5iii. Transparency: funding 13th (22nd)


13th (21st) 7. Quality of relationships 13th (24th)




Boehringer Ingelheim’s NPS over time

2019 +20.7%

2018 +13.2%

2017 +5.9%


PA

GE

76


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Bristol Myers Squibb

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Bristol Myers Squibb—and which worked with the following companies

Roche 69.6%

Pfizer 68.0%


Novartis 61.5%

AstraZeneca 51.0%

Janssen 49.0%

AbbVie 48.2%

Sanofi 47.0%

Amgen 41.3%

Takeda/Shire 39.7%


• United States, 17.3% • Spain, 6.5% • Italy, 6.2% • United Kingdom, 5.7% • Germany, 4.2% • and others


• HIV/AIDS, 10.5% • Cancer: most/all types, 9.1% • Cancer: blood, 5.9% • Cancer: breast, 4.1% • Rare diseases, 3.9% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 70.9% • Purely financial donations, 58.7% • Support for campaigns, 55.1% • Support for advocacy, 49.4% • and others

740 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Bristol Myers Squibb

247 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Bristol Myers Squibb

BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB

SCORES



PA

GE

77


Global edition

Bristol Myers Squibb on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB—RANKINGS


BMS’ overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 22nd (2018: 24th out of 46 companies)

BMS’ overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 21st (2018: 26th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

21st (30th) 1. Patient centricity 18th (29th)

22nd (25th) 2. Patient information 20th (25th)


23rd (27th) 4. High-quality products 25th (26th)

21st (22nd) 5i. Transparency: pricing 18th (26th)

21st (25th) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 22nd (23rd)

22nd (25th) 5iii. Transparency: funding 19th (21st)

22nd (18th) 6. Integrity 23rd (18th)



23rd (30th) 9i. R&D: research 19th (31st)


Bristol Myers Squibb’s NPS over time

2019 +15.3%

2018 +12.4%

2017 -2.5%


PA

GE

78


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Celgene

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Celgene—and which worked with the following companies

Novartis 77.8%

Janssen 66.0%

Roche 64.6%

Pfizer 63.2%

AbbVie 61.8%

Amgen 61.1%

Sanofi 55.6%


Takeda/Shire 49.3%



• United States, 22.6% • Italy, 8.8% • Canada, 5.3% • Belgium, 4.8% • Germany, 4.5% • and others


• Cancer: most/all types, 12.0% • Cancer: blood, 11.4% • Rare diseases, 8.2% • Cancer: breast, 4.0% • Cancer: lung, 3.7% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 73.6% • Support for campaigns, 56.3% • Purely financial donations, 55.6% • Providing information, 53.5% • and others

376 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Celgene

144 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Celgene

CELGENE

SCORES



PA

GE

79


Global edition

Celgene on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

CELGENE—RANKINGS


Celgene’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 27th (2018: 16th out of 46 companies)

Celgene’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 26th (2018: 25th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)



25th (23rd) 3. Patient safety 26th (35th)


38th (23rd) 5i. Transparency: pricing 34th (29th)

30th (20th) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 33rd (25th)


26th (21st) 6. Integrity 22nd (28th)

23rd (17th) 7. Quality of relationships 25th (33rd)



30th (9th) 9ii. R&D: development 31st (11th)

Celgene’s NPS over time

2019 +28.3%

2018 +12.7%

2017 +26.3%


PA

GE

80


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Chiesi Farmaceutici

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Chiesi Farmaceutici—and which worked with the following companies

Novartis 55.6%


GSK 47.2%

Sanofi 44.4%

AstraZeneca 41.7%

Takeda/Shire 41.7%

Vertex 41.7%

Ferring 38.9%

Menarini 38.9%

Otsuka 38.9%


• Italy, 19.3% • Germany, 8.8% • Spain, 8.2% • United States, 7.0% • Belgium, 5.3% • and others


• Rare diseases, 11.7% • Arthritis: most/all types, 4.7% • Chronic disease in general, 4.1% • HIV/AIDS, 4.1% • Respiratory: other, 4.1% • and others




• Helping organise events, 50.0% • Support for campaigns, 44.4% • Support for specific projects, 41.7% • Providing information, 36.1% • and others

171 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Chiesi Farmaceutici

36 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Chiesi Farmaceutici

CHIESI FARMACEUTICI

SCORES



PA

GE

81


Global edition

Chiesi Farmaceutici on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

CHIESI FARMACEUTICI—RANKINGS


Chiesi’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 26th (2018: 19th out of 46 companies)

Chiesi’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 16th (2018: 32nd out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

33rd (14th) 1. Patient centricity 20th (13th)


24th (37th) 3. Patient safety 23rd (44th)


14th (14th) 5i. Transparency: pricing 3rd (42nd)

23rd (23rd) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 10th (41st)

30th (26th) 5iii. Transparency: funding 21st (29th)

31st (15th) 6. Integrity 19th (7th)


25th (18th) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 10th (33rd)


31st (16th) 9ii. R&D: development 19th (41st)

Too few of Chiesi’s patient-group partners responded

to the 2019 survey to enable NPS calculations about

the company.


PA

GE

82


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, CSL Behring

Percentage of patient groups that worked with CSL Behring—and which worked with the following companies

Takeda/Shire 63.9%

Octapharma 57.4%

Grifols 55.7%

Bayer 49.2%

Novo Nordisk 49.2%

Roche 49.2%

Pfizer 45.9%

Sanofi 42.6%

Biogen 39.3%

Novartis 32.8%


• United States, 12.8% • Germany, 10.2% • Russia, 6.2% • Australia, 5.3% • Italy, 5.3% • and others


• Haemophilia, 12.8% • Rare diseases, 9.7% • Primary immunodeficiencies, 5.3% • Chronic disease in general, 4.4% • Bleeding disorders: most/all types, 4.0% • and others




• Helping organise events, 60.7% • Support for specific projects, 57.4% • Purely financial donations, 55.7% • Providing information, 49.2% • and others

226 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with CSL Behring

61 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with CSL Behring

CSL BEHRING

SCORES



PA

GE

83


Global edition

CSL Behring on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

CSL BEHRING—RANKINGS


CSL Behring’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 17th (2018: 32nd out of 46 companies)

CSL Behring’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 13th (2018: 17th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

15th (33rd) 1. Patient centricity 16th (22nd)

17th (40th) 2. Patient information 12th (41st)

13th (31st) 3. Patient safety 8th (11th)



24th (31st) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 18th (30th)



12th (32nd) 7. Quality of relationships 9th (17th)

29th (31st) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 16th (15th)

31st (43rd) 9i. R&D: research 31st (35th)


CSL Behring’s NPS over time

2019 +32.4%

2018 +5.9%

2017 -31.3%


PA

GE

84


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Daiichi Sankyo

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Daiichi Sankyo—and which worked with the following companies


Pfizer 67.9%

Sanofi 64.2%

Novartis 62.3%

Bayer 60.4%

Amgen 58.5%

AstraZeneca 58.5%



Eisai 49.1%


• United States, 25.9% • Japan, 7.9% • Italy, 7.4% • Spain, 6.9% • Canada, 4.8% • and others


• Cancer: most/all types, 7.4% • Cancer: breast, 6.3% • Cancer: blood, 5.3% • Chronic disease in general, 4.8% • Rare diseases, 4.2% • and others




• Support for campaigns, 54.7% • Support for specific projects, 54.7% • Providing information, 39.6% • Purely financial donations, 35.8% • and others

189 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Daiichi Sankyo

53 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Daiichi Sankyo

DAIICHI SANKYO

SCORES



PA

GE

85


Global edition

Daiichi Sankyo on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

DAIICHI SANKYO—RANKINGS


Daiichi’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 33rd (2018: 42nd out of 46 companies)

Daiichi’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 36th (2018: 23rd out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

35th (41st) 1. Patient centricity 33rd (15th)

42nd (43rd) 2. Patient information 43rd (32nd)

35th (44th) 3. Patient safety 35th (33rd)

42nd (43rd) 4. High-quality products 43rd (31st)

26th (41st) 5i. Transparency: pricing 24th (14th)

33rd (46th) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 30th (34th)

36th (33rd) 5iii. Transparency: funding 36th (20th)

37th (41st) 6. Integrity 37th (35th)

35th (45th) 7. Quality of relationships 41st (41st)


27th (31st) 9i. R&D: research 23rd (6th)

21st (34th) 9ii. R&D: development 13th (6th)

Too few of Daiichi Sankyo’s patient-group partners responded to the 2019 survey to enable NPS calculations

about the company.


PA

GE

86


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Eisai

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Eisai—and which worked with the following companies

Novartis 62.7%

Pfizer 52.2%

Eli Lilly 49.3%

Sanofi 46.3%

Takeda/Shire 46.3%


Roche 43.3%

UCB 43.3%

AstraZeneca 40.3%

GSK 40.3%


• United States, 26.4% • Japan, 10.7% • Spain, 6.6% • Italy, 6.1% • Canada, 5.6% • and others


• Cancer: most/all types, 11.7% • Epilepsy, 11.2% • Cancer: breast, 7.1% • Cancer: rare, 4.1% • Chronic disease in general, 4.1% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 53.7% • Providing information, 52.2% • Purely financial donations, 43.3% • Support for campaigns, 43.3% • and others

197 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Eisai

67 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Eisai

EISAI

SCORES



PA

GE

87


Global edition

Eisai on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

EISAI—RANKINGS


Eisai’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 31st (2018: 19th out of 46 companies)

Eisai’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 35th (2018: 31st out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

37th (17th) 1. Patient centricity 40th (21st)



31st (24th) 4. High-quality products 32nd (33rd)


29th (29th) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 19th (32nd)



22nd (18th) 7. Quality of relationships 27th (23rd)

20th (12th) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 30th (23rd)

32nd (25th) 9i. R&D: research 40th (42nd)

39th (31st) 9ii. R&D: development 34th (38th)

Eisai’s NPS over time

2019 -3.1%

2018 -25.9%

2017 +23.8%


PA

GE

88


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Eli Lilly

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Eli Lilly—and which worked with the following companies

Pfizer 68.3%

Novartis 62.1%

Roche 61.6%


Sanofi 50.4%

AstraZeneca 47.3%

AbbVie 46.4%

Janssen 45.1%


Amgen 39.7%


• United States, 17.0% • Italy, 6.1% • United Kingdom, 5.5% • Spain, 5.4% • Germany, 4.7% • and others


• Cancer: most/all types, 8.0% • Diabetes, 7.3% • Cancer: breast, 5.7% • HIV/AIDS, 4.2% • Rare diseases, 4.2% • and others





742 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Eli Lilly

224 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Eli Lilly

ELI LILLY

SCORES



PA

GE

89


Global edition

Eli Lilly on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

ELI LILLY—RANKINGS


Eli Lilly’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 18th (2018: 14th out of 46 companies)

Eli Lilly’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 23rd (2018: 21st out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

19th (15th) 1. Patient centricity 24th (31st)

14th (14th) 2. Patient information 23rd (23rd)


16th (17th) 4. High-quality products 23rd (25th)

20th (24th) 5i. Transparency: pricing 21st (32nd)




19th (15th) 7. Quality of relationships 23rd (29th)

22nd (16th) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 29th (19th)


23rd (18th) 9ii. R&D: development 32nd (27th)

Eli Lilly’s NPS over time

2019 +10.1%

2018 +3.4%

2017 +11.4%


PA

GE

90


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Ferring

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Ferring—and which worked with the following companies


Takeda/Shire 63.8%

Janssen 59.6%

AbbVie 57.4%

Pfizer 57.4%

Amgen 51.1%


AstraZeneca 40.4%


Sanofi 40.4%


• United States, 12.9% • Germany, 7.0% • Belgium, 6.0% • Spain, 6.0% • Sweden, 6.0% • and others


• Crohn’s and colitis, 10.0% • Chronic disease in general, 5.5% • Cancer: most/all types, 4.5% • Rare diseases, 4.5% • Cancer: prostate, 4.0% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 63.8% • Support for campaigns, 59.6% • Helping organise events, 53.2% • Purely financial donations, 46.8% • and others

201 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Ferring

47 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Ferring

FERRING

SCORES



PA

GE

91


Global edition

Ferring on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

FERRING—RANKINGS


Ferring’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 43rd (2018: 39th out of 46 companies)

Ferring’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 41st (2018: 28th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)


44th (42nd) 2. Patient information 33rd (34th)

39th (40th) 3. Patient safety 33rd (33rd)

40th (35th) 4. High-quality products 40th (21st)


44th (36th) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 41st (20th)


41st (35th) 6. Integrity 43rd (34th)

42nd (41st) 7. Quality of relationships 43rd (38th)

43rd (34th) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 40th (15th)

39th (32nd) 9i. R&D: research 32nd (14th)


Too few of Ferring’s patient-group partners responded to the

2019 survey to enable NPS calculations about the company.


PA

GE

92


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Gedeon Richter

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Gedeon Richter—and which worked with the following companies

Roche 60.0%

Sanofi 57.1%

AbbVie 51.4%


Teva 51.4%

Lundbeck 48.6%

Servier 48.6%

Novartis 45.7%

Acorda 42.9%



• Hungary, 12.6% • United States, 9.8% • Poland, 9.1% • Russia, 7.7% • Belgium, 4.9% • and others


• Arthritis: most/all types, 5.6% • Chronic disease in general, 5.6% • Rare diseases, 5.6% • Cancer: most/all types, 4.9% • HIV/AIDS, 4.9% • and others




• Helping organise events, 54.3% • Support for campaigns, 48.6% • Support for specific projects, 48.6% • Providing information, 40.0% • and others

143 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Gedeon Richter

35 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Gedeon Richter

GEDEON RICHTER

SCORES



PA

GE

93


Global edition

Gedeon Richter on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

GEDEON RICHTER—RANKINGS


Gedeon’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 42nd (2018: 38th out of 46 companies)

Gedeon’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 46th (2018: 34th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

30th (34th) 1. Patient centricity 44th (32nd)

32nd (32nd) 2. Patient information 44th (37th)

38th (33rd) 3. Patient safety 44th (41st)

37th (26th) 4. High-quality products 42nd (39th)

36th (40th) 5i. Transparency: pricing 43rd (18th)


47th (22nd) 5iii. Transparency: funding 45th (9th)

42nd (42nd) 6. Integrity 48th (43rd)


45th (43rd) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 45th (35th)

43rd (38th) 9i. R&D: research 45th (22nd)


Too few of Gedeon Richter’s patient-group partners responded to the 2019 survey to enable NPS calculations

about the company.


PA

GE

94


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Gilead Sciences

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Gilead Sciences—and which worked with the following companies

Janssen 62.7%

AbbVie 56.6%


ViiV Healthcare 48.2%

GSK 46.4%


Roche 39.2%

Pfizer 33.1%

Novartis 29.5%

Sanofi 28.3%


• United States, 19.2% • Spain, 9.0% • United Kingdom, 5.7% • Canada, 5.2% • Australia, 4.8% • and others


• HIV/AIDS, 27.8% • Cancer: most/all types, 7.1% • Cancer: blood, 6.4% • Hepatitis, 4.3% • Rare diseases, 4.3% • and others





421 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Gilead Sciences

166 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Gilead Sciences

GILEAD SCIENCES

SCORES



PA

GE

95


Global edition

Gilead Sciences on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

GILEAD SCIENCES—RANKINGS


Gilead’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 5th (2018: 2nd out of 46 companies)

Gilead’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 5th (2018: 2nd out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

5th (6th) 1. Patient centricity 3rd (5th)

6th (4th) 2. Patient information 3rd (3rd)

5th (4th) 3. Patient safety 7th (2nd)

3rd (2nd) 4. High-quality products 1st (2nd)


3rd (2nd) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 3rd (2nd)

3rd (2nd) 5iii. Transparency: funding 2nd (2nd)


4th (2nd) 7. Quality of relationships 2nd (2nd)

5th (3rd) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 3rd (3rd)

8th (3rd) 9i. R&D: research 11th (8th)

8th (3rd) 9ii. R&D: development 17th (10th)

Gilead Sciences’ NPS over time

2019 +38.0%

2018 +23.2%

2017 +25.0%


PA

GE

96


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Grifols

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Grifols—and which worked with the following companies

CSL Behring 70.8%

Octapharma 60.4%

Takeda/Shire 58.3%

Novo Nordisk 54.2%

Sanofi 45.8%

Bayer 43.8%

Biogen 43.8%

Pfizer 39.6%

Roche 39.6%

GSK 37.5%


• Spain, 19.0% • United States, 17.2% • Italy, 6.1% • Germany, 5.5% • Belgium, 3.1% • and others


• Haemophilia, 12.3% • Rare diseases, 7.4% • Bleeding disorders: most/all types, 4.9% • Primary immunodeficiencies, 4.9% • Respiratory: other, 4.9% • and others





163 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Grifols

48 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Grifols

GRIFOLS

SCORES



PA

GE

97


Global edition

Grifols on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

GRIFOLS—RANKINGS


Grifols’ overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 29th (2018: 35th out of 46 companies)

Grifols’ overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 27th (2018: 40th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

27th (42nd) 1. Patient centricity 28th (42nd)

19th (33rd) 2. Patient information 24th (39th)

12th (32nd) 3. Patient safety 18th (36th)

32nd (36th) 4. High-quality products 30th (43rd)

22nd (28th) 5i. Transparency: pricing 28th (44th)


27th (32nd) 5iii. Transparency: funding 24th (24th)

25th (36th) 6. Integrity 38th (41st)

28th (42nd) 7. Quality of relationships 20th (40th)

31st (39th) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 23rd (39th)

30th (41st) 9i. R&D: research 42nd (38th)

43rd (33rd) 9ii. R&D: development 40th (22nd)

Too few of Grifol’s patient-group partners responded to the

2019 survey to enable NPS calculations about the company.


PA

GE

98


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Grünenthal

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Grünenthal—and which worked with the following companies

Novartis 56.3%


Eli Lilly 47.9%

Pfizer 47.9%

Sanofi 47.9%

AbbVie 45.8%


Janssen 41.7%

Roche 41.7%

AstraZeneca 39.6%


• Germany, 15.7% • Spain, 10.3% • Italy, 7.8% • United States, 6.9% • Portugal, 6.4% • and others


• Arthritis: most/all types, 8.3% • Rare diseases, 7.8% • Cancer: most/all types, 4.9% • Chronic disease in general, 4.9% • HIV/AIDS, 4.9% • and others





204 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Grünenthal

48 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Grünenthal

GRÜNENTHAL

SCORES



PA

GE

99


Global edition

Grünenthal on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

GRÜNENTHAL—RANKINGS


Grünenthal’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 37th (2018: 33rd out of 46 companies)

Grünenthal’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 32nd (2018: 12th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)


39th (21st) 2. Patient information 35th (6th)



41st (38th) 5i. Transparency: pricing 30th (18th)


33rd (39th) 5iii. Transparency: funding 25th (32nd)

35th (31st) 6. Integrity 29th (25th)


42nd (38th) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 41st (26th)

22nd (26th) 9i. R&D: research 15th (4th)

32nd (20th) 9ii. R&D: development 21st (3rd)

Too few of Grünenthal’s patient-group partners responded


about the company.


PA

GE

10

0


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, GSK

Percentage of patient groups that worked with GSK—and which worked with the following companies

Pfizer 53.8%

Novartis 51.7%

Roche 45.9%


AbbVie 39.3%

Janssen 39.3%

Sanofi 38.6%

AstraZeneca 38.3%


Eli Lilly 28.6%


• United States, 13.2% • Spain, 6.4% • United Kingdom, 6.3% • Italy, 4.5% • France, 3.9% • and others


• HIV/AIDS, 13.0% • Rare diseases, 6.3% • Cancer: most/all types, 6.2% • Arthritis: most/all types, 3.7% • Cancer: blood, 3.2% • and others





839 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with GSK

290 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with GSK

GSK

SCORES



PA

GE

10

1


Global edition

GSK on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

GSK—RANKINGS


GSK’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 12th (2018: 13th out of 46 companies)

GSK’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 11th (2018: 20th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)






12th (15th) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 13th (22nd)


13th (17th) 6. Integrity 13th (21st)



10th (16th) 9i. R&D: research 9th (23rd)

9th (23rd) 9ii. R&D: development 10th (28th)

GSK’s NPS over time

2019 +8.8%

2018 +1.9%

2017 +11.2%


PA

GE

10

2


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Ipsen

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Ipsen—and which worked with the following companies

Pfizer 61.3%

Novartis 56.5%

Amgen 54.8%


Sanofi 48.4%


AstraZeneca 45.2%


Roche 41.9%

Takeda/Shire 41.9%


• United States, 13.7% • France, 7.5% • Canada, 6.2% • Italy, 5.8% • Germany, 5.4% • and others


• Cancer: most/all types, 10.8% • Rare diseases, 8.3% • Cancer: rare, 4.1% • Cancer: breast, 3.7% • Chronic disease in general, 3.7% • and others




• Support for campaigns, 56.5% • Support for specific projects, 53.2% • Purely financial donations, 51.6% • Providing information, 48.4% • and others

241 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Ipsen

62 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Ipsen

IPSEN

SCORES



PA

GE

10

3


Global edition

Ipsen on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

IPSEN—RANKINGS


Ipsen’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 30th (2018: 25th out of 46 companies)

Ipsen’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 25th (2018: 30th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

34th (27th) 1. Patient centricity 32nd (26th)

35th (24th) 2. Patient information 29th (22nd)

31st (16th) 3. Patient safety 15th (18th)



28th (34th) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 26th (31st)

42nd (31st) 5iii. Transparency: funding 43rd (28th)

30th (23rd) 6. Integrity 27th (23rd)




26th (32nd) 9ii. R&D: development 30th (30th)

Too few of Ipsen’s patient-group partners responded to the 2019 survey to enable NPS calculations about the company


PA

GE

10

4


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Janssen

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Janssen—and which worked with the following companies

Pfizer 51.7%

AbbVie 50.9%

Novartis 48.3%

Roche 44.8%


Sanofi 37.9%


GSK 32.8%

Takeda/Shire 32.5%

Amgen 31.6%


• United States, 12.4% • Spain, 7.8% • Italy, 5.4% • Belgium, 4.0% • Portugal, 4.0% • and others


• HIV/AIDS, 10.9% • Cancer: most/all types, 7.9% • Cancer: blood, 6.0% • Rare diseases, 4.9% • Arthritis: most/all types, 3.5% • and others





822 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Janssen

348 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Janssen

JANSSEN

SCORES



PA

GE

10

5


Global edition

Janssen on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

JANSSEN—RANKINGS


Janssen’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 7th (2018: 3rd out of 46 companies)

Janssen’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 7th (2018: 3rd out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)





7th (2nd) 5i. Transparency: pricing 5th (2nd)



6th (2nd) 6. Integrity 6th (2nd)

7th (3rd) 7. Quality of relationships 8th (3rd)




Janssen’s NPS over time

2019 +29.8%

2018 +25.4%

2017 +24.3%


PA

GE

10

6


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, LEO Pharma

Percentage of patient groups that worked with LEO Pharma—and which worked with the following companies

Novartis 69.6%

AbbVie 67.9%

Janssen 62.5%

Eli Lilly 57.1%

Pfizer 57.1%

Celgene 55.4%

Sanofi 48.2%

Amgen 46.4%


UCB 41.1%


• United States, 8.4% • Spain, 8.0% • Denmark, 7.3% • United Kingdom, 6.9% • Greece, 6.1% • and others


• Cancer: most/all types, 6.1% • Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, 6.1% • Arthritis: most/all types, 5.7% • Chronic disease in general, 4.6% • Diabetes, 4.2% • and others





262 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with LEO Pharma

56 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with LEO Pharma

LEO PHARMA

SCORES



PA

GE

10

7


Global edition

LEO Pharma on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

LEO PHARMA—RANKINGS


LEO’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 28th (2018: 31st out of 46 companies)

LEO’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 29th (2018: 18th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)



23rd (22nd) 3. Patient safety 25th (12th)


25th (43rd) 5i. Transparency: pricing 22nd (43rd)

37th (40th) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 45th (43rd)

21st (36th) 5iii. Transparency: funding 20th (36th)

24th (29th) 6. Integrity 26th (22nd)

32nd (28th) 7. Quality of relationships 35th (13th)

23rd (15th) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 31st (5th)

37th (42nd) 9i. R&D: research 43rd (37th)

22nd (24th) 9ii. R&D: development 24th (13th)

Too few of LEO Pharma’s patient-group partners responded to the 2019 survey to enable NPS calculations

about the company.


PA

GE

10

8


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Lundbeck

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Lundbeck—and which worked with the following companies

Janssen 52.9%

Otsuka 42.6%

Teva 36.8%

UCB 36.8%

Eli Lilly 35.3%

AstraZeneca 33.8%

Takeda/Shire 33.8%


Novartis 32.4%

AbbVie 30.9%


• United States, 19.3% • Denmark, 10.1% • Canada, 6.6% • Spain, 5.7% • Belgium, 5.3% • and others


• Mental health: most/all conditions, 8.8% • Parkinson’s, 6.1% • Epilepsy, 4.8% • Rare diseases, 4.4% • Cancer: blood, 3.9% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 61.8% • Support for campaigns, 47.1% • Purely financial donations, 39.7% • Support for advocacy, 39.7% • and others

228 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Lundbeck

68 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Lundbeck

LUNDBECK

SCORES



PA

GE

10

9


Global edition

Lundbeck on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

LUNDBECK—RANKINGS


Lundbeck’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 15th (2018: 12th out of 46 companies)

Lundbeck’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 14th (2018: 9th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)



21st (10th) 3. Patient safety 22nd (6th)


24th (13th) 5i. Transparency: pricing 23rd (13th)


17th (10th) 5iii. Transparency: funding 23rd (11th)

9th (11th) 6. Integrity 5th (3rd)



13th (21st) 9i. R&D: research 10th (24th)


Lundbeck’s NPS over time

2019 +35.1%

2018 +71.9%

2017 +60.0%


PA

GE

11

0


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Menarini

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Menarini—and which worked with the following companies

Novartis 56.3%

Sanofi 54.2%

AstraZeneca 52.1%


Bayer 50.0%

Janssen 50.0%

Roche 50.0%


Eli Lilly 47.9%

Pfizer 47.9%


• Italy, 25.8% • Spain, 8.0% • United States, 6.1% • France, 4.7% • Ireland, 4.7% • and others


• Diabetes, 13.6% • Arthritis: most/all types, 6.6% • Rare diseases, 5.6% • Cancer: most/all types, 5.2% • Chronic disease in general, 4.7% • and others




• Support for campaigns, 58.3% • Helping organise events, 56.3% • Support for specific projects, 56.3% • Providing information, 35.4% • and others

213 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Menarini

48 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Menarini

MENARINI

SCORES



PA

GE

11

1


Global edition

Menarini on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

MENARINI—RANKINGS


Menarini’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 34th (2018: 30th out of 46 companies)

Menarini’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 37th (2018: 41st out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

32nd (28th) 1. Patient centricity 35th (38th)

31st (30th) 2. Patient information 30th (37th)

29th (30th) 3. Patient safety 33rd (22nd)

33rd (31st) 4. High-quality products 28th (36th)





33rd (36th) 7. Quality of relationships 27th (37th)

33rd (23rd) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 33rd (32nd)

40th (33rd) 9i. R&D: research 35th (41st)


Too few of Menarini’s patient-group partners responded to the 2019 survey to enable NPS calculations

about the company.


PA

GE

11

2


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Merck & Co/MSD

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Merck & Co/MSD—and which worked with the following companies

Pfizer 61.2%

Roche 58.3%

Novartis 56.6%

AbbVie 53.7%

Janssen 49.8%


AstraZeneca 44.0%

GSK 41.7%

Sanofi 40.5%

Eli Lilly 37.9%


• United States, 16.0% • Spain, 8.0% • Italy, 5.0% • Canada, 4.1% • United Kingdom, 4.1% • and others


• HIV/AIDS, 11.4% • Cancer: most/all types, 8.9% • Arthritis: most/all types, 4.1% • Cancer: blood, 3.9% • Cancer: breast, 3.9% • and others





773 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Merck & Co/MSD

309 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Merck & Co/MSD

MERCK & CO/MSD

SCORES



PA

GE

11

3


Global edition

Merck & Co/MSD on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

MERCK & CO/MSD—RANKINGS


Merck & Co’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 14th (2018: 23rd out of 46 companies)

Merck & Co’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 19th (2018: 35th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

16th (19th) 1. Patient centricity 21st (37th)

16th (27th) 2. Patient information 21st (36th)






15th (19th) 6. Integrity 20th (32nd)

16th (23rd) 7. Quality of relationships 24th (34th)

18th (28th) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 21st (38th)

18th (29th) 9i. R&D: research 24th (32nd)

18th (28th) 9ii. R&D: development 25th (31st)

Merck & Co/MSD’s NPS over time

2019 +4.8%

2018 -8.5%

2017 +13.5%


PA

GE

11

4


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Merck KGaA/EMD Serono

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Merck KGaA/EMD Serono—and which worked with the following companies

Roche 73.3%

Novartis 65.6%

Pfizer 56.5%

Sanofi 54.2%

AstraZeneca 49.6%



Bayer 45.8%

Eli Lilly 38.9%

Amgen 38.2%


• United States, 12.3% • Germany, 9.8% • Italy, 5.9% • Spain, 5.3% • United Kingdom, 4.7% • and others


• Cancer: most/all types, 10.4% • Multiple sclerosis, 7.2% • Rare diseases, 6.2% • Arthritis: most/all types, 4.0% • Cancer: blood, 3.6% • and others





471 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Merck KGaA/EMD Serono

131 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Merck KGaA/EMD Serono

MERCK KGaA/ EMD SERONO

SCORES



PA

GE

11

5


Global edition

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

MERCK KGaA/EMD SERONO—RANKINGS


Merck KGaA’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 25th (2018: 27th out of 46 companies)

Merck KGaA’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 22nd (2018: 33rd out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with

2019 (2018)

23rd (29th) 1. Patient centricity 19th (35th)

23rd (29th) 2. Patient information 22nd (34th)


24th (29th) 4. High-quality products 22nd (29th)




32nd (28th) 6. Integrity 25th (37th)

21st (27th) 7. Quality of relationships 17th (32nd)



24th (22nd) 9ii. R&D: development 20th (21st)

Merck KGaA/EMD Serono’s NPS over time

2019 +6.9%

2018 +20.0%

2017 +21.4%


PA

GE

11

6


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Mundipharma

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Mundipharma—and which worked with the following companies

Novartis 66.7%

AstraZeneca 62.2%

Pfizer 55.6%

Amgen 53.3%


GSK 51.1%

Roche 48.9%

AbbVie 46.7%




• Germany, 10.9% • Spain, 9.8% • Italy, 8.3% • Australia, 5.7% • Portugal, 5.7% • and others


• Arthritis: most/all types, 7.3% • Cancer: blood, 6.2% • Cancer: most/all types, 5.7% • Rare diseases, 4.7% • Cancer: breast, 3.6% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 57.8% • Providing information, 46.7% • Support for campaigns, 44.4% • Helping organise events, 42.2% • and others

193 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Mundipharma

45 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Mundipharma

MUNDIPHARMA

SCORES



PA

GE

11

7


Global edition

Mundipharma on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

MUNDIPHARMA—RANKINGS


Mundipharma’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 47th (2018: 45th out of 46 companies)

Mundipharma’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 47th (2018: 43rd out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)



46th (42nd) 3. Patient safety 45th (43rd)



48th (39th) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 46th (33rd)



44th (43rd) 7. Quality of relationships 44th (43rd)


48th (44th) 9i. R&D: research 41st (35th)

44th (43rd) 9ii. R&D: development 42nd (32nd)

Too few of Mundipharma’s patient-group partners responded


about the company.


PA

GE

11

8


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Novartis

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Novartis—and which worked with the following companies

Pfizer 57.5%

Roche 54.8%

Sanofi 36.6%

AbbVie 36.2%

AstraZeneca 34.2%


Janssen 32.9%


GSK 29.4%

Amgen 27.8%


• United States, 10.9% • Spain, 7.6% • Italy, 5.9% • Germany, 5.8% • United Kingdom, 4.2% • and others


• Rare diseases, 6.5% • Cancer: most/all types, 6.2% • Cancer: breast, 4.6% • Cancer: blood, 4.5% • HIV/AIDS, 3.7% • and others





1225 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Novartis

511 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Novartis

NOVARTIS

SCORES



PA

GE

11

9


Global edition

Novartis on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

NOVARTIS—RANKINGS


Novartis’ overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 4th (2018: 4th out of 46 companies)

Novartis’ overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 4th (2018: 6th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

4th (3rd) 1. Patient centricity 5th (9th)

4th (3rd) 2. Patient information 4th (7th)




4th (3rd) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 4th (6th)





3rd (5th) 9i. R&D: research 3rd (9th)

3rd (2nd) 9ii. R&D: development 3rd (8th)

Novartis’ NPS over time

2019 +28.0%

2018 +17.1%

2017 +32.1%


PA

GE

12

0


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Novo Nordisk

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Novo Nordisk—and which worked with the following companies

Roche 63.7%

Bayer 53.1%

Sanofi 53.1%

Takeda/Shire 47.8%

Pfizer 46.0%

Novartis 41.6%

Eli Lilly 38.9%


AstraZeneca 31.9%



• United States, 14.3% • Denmark, 5.6% • Italy, 5.6% • Spain, 4.3% • United Kingdom, 3.9% • and others


• Diabetes, 13.6% • Haemophilia, 8.2% • Rare diseases, 6.9% • Cancer: most/all types, 5.4% • Arthritis: most/all types, 3.0% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 63.7% • Helping organise events, 61.9% • Purely financial donations, 48.7% • Providing information, 43.4% • and others

462 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Novo Nordisk

113 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Novo Nordisk

NOVO NORDISK

SCORES



PA

GE

12

1


Global edition

Novo Nordisk on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

NOVO NORDISK—RANKINGS


Novo Nordisk’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 10th (2018: 11th out of 46 companies)

Novo Nordisk’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 8th (2018: 7th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

10th (10th) 1. Patient centricity 7th (3rd)

9th (8th) 2. Patient information 5th (2nd)


8th (7th) 4. High-quality products 4th (3rd)






9th (9th) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 5th (2nd)



Novo Nordisk’s NPS over time

2019 +27.9%

2018 +38.6%

2017 +32.7%


PA

GE

12

2


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Octapharma

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Octapharma—and which worked with the following companies

Takeda/Shire 68.5%

CSL Behring 64.8%

Novo Nordisk 61.1%

Grifols 53.7%

Pfizer 51.9%

Roche 51.9%

Bayer 48.1%

Biogen 35.2%

Sanofi 35.2%

Novartis 29.6%


• Russia, 10.3% • United States, 9.8% • Portugal, 8.3% • Spain, 5.9% • Sweden, 5.9% • and others


• Haemophilia, 16.2% • Rare diseases, 7.4% • Primary immunodeficiencies, 5.4% • Bleeding disorders: most/all types, 4.9% • Cancer: breast, 3.4% • and others




• Helping organise events, 66.7% • Support for specific projects, 61.1% • Support for campaigns, 53.7% • Purely financial donations, 51.9% • and others

204 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Octapharma

54 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Octapharma

OCTAPHARMA

SCORES



PA

GE

12

3


Global edition

Octapharma on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

OCTAPHARMA—RANKINGS


Octapharma’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 20th (2018: 34th out of 46 companies)

Octapharma’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 33rd (2018: 38th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)





17th (21st) 5i. Transparency: pricing 40th (21st)

22nd (33rd) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 24th (42nd)


21st (33rd) 6. Integrity 33rd (33rd)

29th (33rd) 7. Quality of relationships 37th (28th)

19th (37th) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 28th (42nd)

21st (35th) 9i. R&D: research 43rd (39th)

29th (40th) 9ii. R&D: development 41st (42nd)

Too few of Octapharma’s patient-group partners responded


about the company.


PA

GE

12

4


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Otsuka

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Otsuka—and which worked with the following companies

Janssen 67.3%

Takeda/Shire 57.7%

Lundbeck 55.8%

Eli Lilly 46.2%


Pfizer 44.2%

Sanofi 42.3%

Eisai 40.4%

AbbVie 38.5%

Amgen 38.5%


• United States, 19.5% • Japan, 9.1% • Spain, 7.8% • Belgium, 5.8% • Canada, 5.2% • and others


• Mental health: most/all conditions, 7.8% • Cancer: most/all types, 5.8% • Rare diseases, 5.2% • Chronic disease in general, 4.5% • HIV/AIDS, 4.5% • and others





154 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Otsuka

52 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Otsuka

OTSUKA

SCORES



PA

GE

12

5


Global edition

Otsuka on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

OTSUKA—RANKINGS


Otsuka’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 23rd (2018: 22nd out of 46 companies)

Otsuka’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 24th (2018: 19th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

26th (23rd) 1. Patient centricity 27th (17th)

25th (21st) 2. Patient information 26th (24th)

32nd (14th) 3. Patient safety 32nd (21st)

22nd (22nd) 4. High-quality products 21st (22nd)

18th (33rd) 5i. Transparency: pricing 17th (21st)

32nd (22nd) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 32nd (18th)

25th (23rd) 5iii. Transparency: funding 31st (26th)

16th (32nd) 6. Integrity 15th (28th)


17th (22nd) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 27th (28th)

25th (23rd) 9i. R&D: research 16th (17th)

27th (21st) 9ii. R&D: development 22nd (25th)

Too few of Otsuka’s patient-group partners responded


about the company.


PA

GE

12

6


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Pfizer

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Pfizer—and which worked with the following companies

Novartis 57.9%

Roche 55.5%

Sanofi 39.6%

AbbVie 39.4%


Janssen 35.4%

AstraZeneca 33.1%


GSK 30.7%

Eli Lilly 30.1%




• Cancer: most/all types, 6.6% • Rare diseases, 6.4% • HIV/AIDS, 5.6% • Cancer: breast, 4.5% • Arthritis: most/all types, 3.9% • and others





1236 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Pfizer

508 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Pfizer

PFIZER

SCORES



PA

GE

12

7


Global edition

Pfizer on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

PFIZER—RANKINGS


Pfizer’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 6th (2018: 9th out of 46 companies)

Pfizer’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 6th (2018: 11th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)











4th (12th) 9i. R&D: research 5th (21st)


Pfizer’s NPS over time

2019 +32.3%

2018 +20.9%

2017 +12.3%


PA

GE

12

8


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Pierre Fabre

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Pierre Fabre—and which worked with the following companies

Novartis 72.0%

Pfizer 64.0%

Roche 58.0%

Sanofi 54.0%

Amgen 52.0%

Celgene 52.0%

Eli Lilly 50.0%


Janssen 48.0%

AstraZeneca 46.0%


• France, 15.3% • Spain, 8.2% • United States, 7.1% • Italy, 6.6% • Poland, 6.1% • and others


• Cancer: most/all types, 8.2% • Cancer: breast, 7.7% • Rare diseases, 5.6% • HIV/AIDS, 4.6% • Arthritis: most/all types, 4.1% • and others


International, 10.7% • National, 69.9% • Large regional, 9.2% • Local, 8.7%


• Support for campaigns, 60.0% • Helping organise events, 58.0% • Support for specific projects, 58.0% • Purely financial donations, 46.0% • and others

196 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Pierre Fabre

50 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Pierre Fabre

PIERRE FABRE

SCORES



PA

GE

12

9


Global edition

Pierre Fabre on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

PIERRE FABRE—RANKINGS


Pierre Fabre’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 45th (2018: 43rd out of 46 companies)

Pierre Fabre’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 42nd (2018: 37th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

45th (43rd) 1. Patient centricity 42nd (41st)

40th (38th) 2. Patient information 42nd (40th)

45th (43rd) 3. Patient safety 41st (42nd)

46th (41st) 4. High-quality products 44th (40th)

32nd (46th) 5i. Transparency: pricing 33rd (41st)

47th (42nd) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 44th (40th)




41st (32nd) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 42nd (20th)



Too few of Pierre Fabre’s patient-group partners responded


about the company.


PA

GE

13

0


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Roche

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Roche—and which worked with the following companies

Pfizer 56.1%

Novartis 55.7%

Sanofi 36.4%


AbbVie 35.0%


AstraZeneca 32.2%

Janssen 31.0%

Bayer 27.8%

Eli Lilly 27.4%




• Cancer: most/all types, 7.1% • Rare diseases, 5.8% • HIV/AIDS, 5.2% • Diabetes, 4.8% • Cancer: breast, 4.7% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 69.8% • Support for campaigns, 54.5% • Helping organise events, 53.1% • Providing information, 50.7% • and others

1155 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Roche

503 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Roche

ROCHE (Genentech in the USA; Chugai in Japan)

SCORES



PA

GE

13

1


Global edition

Roche on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

ROCHE—RANKINGS


Roche’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 2nd (2018: 6th out of 46 companies)

Roche’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 2nd (2018: 4th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

2nd (5th) 1. Patient centricity 2nd (10th)

2nd (6th) 2. Patient information 2nd (4th)

2nd (3rd) 3. Patient safety 2nd (5th)

2nd (5th) 4. High-quality products 3rd (4th)

3rd (3rd) 5i. Transparency: pricing 2nd (3rd)

2nd (5th) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 2nd (5th)

2nd (6th) 5iii. Transparency: funding 4th (4th)

2nd (4th) 6. Integrity 2nd (5th)

2nd (6th) 7. Quality of relationships 3rd (11th)

2nd (6th) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 2nd (9th)

2nd (6th) 9i. R&D: research 2nd (7th)

2nd (5th) 9ii. R&D: development 2nd (7th)

Roche’s NPS over time

2019 +39.9%

2018 +35.2%

2017 +34.6%


PA

GE

13

2


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Sandoz

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Sandoz—and which worked with the following companies

Pfizer 75.3%

Janssen 61.6%

Novartis 61.6%

Roche 61.6%

AbbVie 54.8%

Amgen 54.8%

Sanofi 53.4%


Celgene 45.2%



• United States, 9.0% • Italy, 8.4% • Germany, 7.0% • Sweden, 6.0% • France, 4.7% • and others


• Cancer: most/all types, 5.8% • Rare diseases, 5.6% • Cancer: blood, 4.7% • HIV/AIDS, 4.7% • Arthritis: most/all types, 4.4% • and others





569 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Sandoz

73 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Sandoz

SANDOZ

SCORES



PA

GE

13

3


Global edition

Sandoz on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

SANDOZ—RANKINGS


Sandoz’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 41st (2018: not included)

Sandoz’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 40th (2018: not included)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

43rd (-) 1. Patient centricity 41st (-)

38th (-) 2. Patient information 32nd (-)

36th (-) 3. Patient safety 38th (-)

35th (-) 4. High-quality products 33rd (-)

33rd (-) 5i. Transparency: pricing 27th (-)

38th (-) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 37th (-)

44th (-) 5iii. Transparency: funding 41st (-)

46th (-) 6. Integrity 44th (-)

45th (-) 7. Quality of relationships 39th (-)

44th (-) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 43rd (-)

38th (-) 9i. R&D: research 36th (-)

34th (-) 9ii. R&D: development 36th (-)

Sandoz’s NPS over time

2019 -2.6%

2018 -

2017 -

Sandoz was not included in the

2015-2018 analyses.

In 2019, the company is ranked 41st

out of 48 companies by the patient groups

familiar with Sandoz.


PA

GE

13

4


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Sanofi

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Sanofi—and which worked with the following companies

Pfizer 63.0%

Novartis 58.6%

Roche 57.4%

Janssen 41.4%


Bayer 38.6%

Takeda/Shire 37.6%

AbbVie 37.3%


AstraZeneca 36.1%


• United States, 12.2% • Italy, 7.1% • France, 6.0% • Germany, 5.5% • Spain, 5.2% • and others


• Rare diseases, 8.3% • Cancer: most/all types, 7.8% • Diabetes, 5.5% • Arthritis: most/all types, 3.9% • Cancer: blood, 3.9% • and others





854 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Sanofi

314 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Sanofi

SANOFI

SCORES



PA

GE

13

5


Global edition

Sanofi on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

SANOFI—RANKINGS


Sanofi’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 9th (2018: 10th out of 46 companies)

Sanofi’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 15th (2018: 15th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)










11th (11th) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 22nd (18th)



Sanofi’s NPS over time

2019 +13.1%

2018 +13.0%

2017 +16.1%


PA

GE

13

6


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Servier

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Servier—and which worked with the following companies

Sanofi 68.2%

Novartis 66.7%


Pfizer 65.2%

Roche 65.2%

Amgen 62.1%

AstraZeneca 60.6%

Bayer 56.1%

Takeda/Shire 56.1%



• France, 9.9% • United States, 9.0% • Poland, 6.9% • Italy, 6.4% • Spain, 6.0% • and others


• Cancer: most/all types, 7.7% • Rare diseases, 6.4% • Cancer: blood, 6.0% • Chronic disease in general, 4.7% • Diabetes, 4.3% • and others




• Support for campaigns, 66.7% • Support for specific projects, 60.6% • Helping organise events, 47.0% • Purely financial donations, 42.4% • and others

233 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Servier

66 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Servier

SERVIER

SCORES



PA

GE

13

7


Global edition

Servier on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

SERVIER—RANKINGS


Servier’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 32nd (2018: 41st out of 46 companies)

Servier’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 34th (2018: 42nd out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

31st (44th) 1. Patient centricity 34th (44th)

29th (39th) 2. Patient information 38th (43rd)



34th (39th) 5i. Transparency: pricing 32nd (31st)

31st (27th) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 29th (19th)

31st (37th) 5iii. Transparency: funding 34th (31st)

23rd (44th) 6. Integrity 24th (42nd)

30th (40th) 7. Quality of relationships 30th (42nd)

27th (41st) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 20th (43rd)

34th (40th) 9i. R&D: research 32nd (43rd)


Servier’s NPS over time

2019 +6.1%

2018 -12.0%

2017 -30.0%


PA

GE

13

8


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Takeda/Shire

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Takeda/Shire—and which worked with the following companies

Pfizer 58.2%

Roche 53.8%

Novartis 50.6%

Sanofi 48.2%

Janssen 45.4%

AstraZeneca 41.8%


AbbVie 39.8%


Amgen 34.9%


• United States, 16.9% • Italy, 5.2% • Germany, 4.3% • Canada, 3.6% • Belgium, 3.4% • and others


• Rare diseases, 9.8% • Cancer: most/all types, 9.3% • Cancer: blood, 7.1% • Haemophilia, 5.3% • Cancer: lung, 4.5% • and others





581 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Takeda/Shire

249 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Takeda/Shire

TAKEDA/SHIRE

SCORES



PA

GE

13

9


Global edition

Takeda/Shire on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

TAKEDA/SHIRE—RANKINGS


Takeda’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 8th (2018: 7th out of 46 companies)

Takeda’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 12th (2018: 10th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)






19th (10th) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 23rd (21st)





11th (8th) 9i. R&D: research 22nd (18th)


Takeda/Shire’s NPS over time

2019 +21.6%

2018 +21.3%

2017 +14.6%


PA

GE

14

0


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Teva

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Teva—and which worked with the following companies

Novartis 70.2%

Roche 56.4%

Sanofi 50.0%


Pfizer 45.7%

AstraZeneca 42.6%

AbbVie 41.5%

Takeda/Shire 40.4%

Janssen 39.4%

Bayer 38.3%


• United States, 16.0% • Italy, 8.0% • Belgium, 4.7% • Poland, 4.7% • Canada, 4.5% • and others


• Cancer: most/all types, 6.5% • HIV/AIDS, 6.2% • Multiple sclerosis, 6.0% • Rare diseases, 5.8% • Cancer: blood, 4.5% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 59.6% • Helping organise events, 51.1% • Purely financial donations, 48.9% • Support for campaigns, 47.9% • and others

449 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Teva

94 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Teva

TEVA

SCORES



PA

GE

14

1


Global edition

Teva on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

TEVA—RANKINGS


Teva’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 36th (2018: 36th out of 46 companies)

Teva’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 39th (2018: 43rd out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

38th (38th) 1. Patient centricity 36th (43rd)

34th (31st) 2. Patient information 41st (42nd)

33rd (36th) 3. Patient safety 40th (38th)


31st (31st) 5i. Transparency: pricing 35th (38th)


37th (28th) 5iii. Transparency: funding 33rd (37th)



37th (35th) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 37th (41st)

42nd (37th) 9i. R&D: research 34th (40th)

38th (37th) 9ii. R&D: development 33rd (39th)

Teva’s NPS over time

2019 -10.2%

2018 -15.4%

2017 -8.1%


PA

GE

14

2


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, UCB

Percentage of patient groups that worked with UCB—and which worked with the following companies

AbbVie 59.2%

Novartis 59.2%

Pfizer 50.5%

Eli Lilly 45.6%

Sanofi 45.6%

Roche 39.8%


GSK 37.9%

Janssen 36.9%

Celgene 35.0%


• United States, 12.5% • Belgium, 7.2% • Italy, 6.8% • Spain, 6.8% • United Kingdom, 6.1% • and others


• Epilepsy, 9.8% • Arthritis: most/all types, 8.3% • Rare diseases, 6.1% • Rheumatoid arthritis, 6.1% • Chronic disease in general, 4.9% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 65.0% • Support for campaigns, 55.3% • Helping organise events, 49.5% • Providing information, 49.5% • and others

264 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with UCB

103 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with UCB

UCB

SCORES



PA

GE

14

3


Global edition

UCB on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

UCB—RANKINGS


UCB’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 16th (2018: 8th out of 46 companies)

UCB’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 20th (2018: 8th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)



22nd (13th) 3. Patient safety 19th (15th)

21st (12th) 4. High-quality products 27th (12th)

23rd (7th) 5i. Transparency: pricing 36th (5th)






14th (2nd) 9i. R&D: research 21st (3rd)


UCB’s NPS over time

201+13.8%9 +13.8%

2018 +26.4%

2017 +42.9%


PA

GE

14

4


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Vertex

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Vertex—and which worked with the following companies

AbbVie 64.5%

Janssen 61.3%

Celgene 58.1%

Gilead 58.1%

ViiV Healthcare 58.1%

Amgen 54.8%


CSL Behring 54.8%

Otsuka 54.8%

Sanofi 54.8%


• United States, 26.5% • Canada, 7.3% • United Kingdom, 6.0% • Germany, 5.3% • Belgium, 4.6% • and others


• Rare diseases, 13.2% • HIV/AIDS, 9.9% • Chronic disease in general, 5.3% • Cystic fibrosis, 5.3% • Arthritis: most/all types, 4.0% • and others




Support for campaigns, 48.4% • Support for specific projects, 48.4% • Purely financial donations, 41.9% • Helping organise events, 41.9% • and others

151 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Vertex

31 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Vertex

VERTEX

SCORES



PA

GE

14

5


Global edition

Vertex on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

VERTEX—RANKINGS


Vertex’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 40th (2018: 26th out of 46 companies)

Vertex’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 43rd (2018: 13th out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

42nd (32nd) 1. Patient centricity 43rd (25th)


41st (41st) 3. Patient safety 43rd (31st)

28th (16th) 4. High-quality products 41st (7th)

47th (19th) 5i. Transparency: pricing 42nd (11th)

26th (18th) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 31st (3rd)

38th (43rd) 5iii. Transparency: funding 27th (40th)

44th (43rd) 6. Integrity 45th (39th)


40th (33rd) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 44th (22nd)

33rd (9th) 9i. R&D: research 45th (1st)

33rd (6th) 9ii. R&D: development 42nd (1st)

Too few of Vertex’s patient-group partners responded


about the company.


PA

GE

14

6


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, Vifor

Percentage of patient groups that worked with Vifor—and which worked with the following companies

Amgen 68.2%

Ferring 68.2%

AbbVie 63.6%


Otsuka 63.6%

Takeda/Shire 63.6%

UCB 63.6%


Janssen 59.1%

Mundipharma 59.1%


• United States, 12.9% • Switzerland, 7.5% • Italy, 6.5% • Portugal, 6.5% • Ireland, 5.4% • and others


• Crohn’s and colitis, 7.5% • HIV/AIDS, 6.5% • Rare diseases, 6.5% • Cancer: most/all types, 5.4% • Kidney disease, 5.4% • and others




• Support for campaigns, 54.5% • Support for specific projects, 50.0% • Helping organise events, 36.4% • Purely financial donations, 31.8% • and others

93 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with Vifor

22 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with Vifor

VIFOR

SCORES



PA

GE

14

7


Global edition

Vifor on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

VIFOR—RANKINGS


Vifor’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 39th (2018: not included)

Vifor’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 44th (2018: not included)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

44th (-) 1. Patient centricity 46th (-)

36th (-) 2. Patient information 45th (-)

44th (-) 3. Patient safety 46th (-)

41st (-) 4. High-quality products 48th (-)

43rd (-) 5i. Transparency: pricing 46th (-)

25th (-) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 35th (-)

34th (-) 5iii. Transparency: funding 39th (-)

38th (-) 6. Integrity 42nd (-)

41st (-) 7. Quality of relationships 48th (-)

35th (-) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 39th (-)

29th (-) 9i. R&D: research 20th (-)

42nd (-) 9ii. R&D: development 42nd (-)

Vifor was not included in the

2015-2018 analyses.

In 2019, the company is ranked 39th

out of 48 companies by the patient groups

familiar with Vifor.

Too few of Vifor’s patient-group partners responded


about the company.


PA

GE

14

8


Global edition

PROFILES

Profile of patient groups familiar, and working with, ViiV Healthcare

Percentage of patient groups that worked with ViiV Healthcare—and which worked with the following companies

Gilead 77.7%

Janssen 60.2%

GSK 55.3%


AbbVie 43.7%


Pfizer 23.3%

Roche 22.3%

Vertex 17.5%

Sanofi 15.5%


• United States, 13.2% • Spain, 12.7% • Portugal, 7.3% • Australia, 5.4% • Poland, 3.9% • and others


• HIV/AIDS, 53.2% • HIV/AIDS and hepatitis, 4.4% • Chronic disease in general, 2.9% • Arthritis: most/all types, 2.4% • Cancer: most/all types, 2.4% • and others




• Support for specific projects, 62.1% • Purely financial donations, 51.5% • Helping organise events, 49.5% • Support for campaigns, 48.5% • and others

205 Number of patient groups claiming familiarity with ViiV Healthcare

103 Number of patient groups saying that they had a working relationship with ViiV Healthcare

ViiV HEALTHCARE

SCORES



PA

GE

14

9


Global edition

ViiV Healthcare on the Net Promoter Score ‘Swingometer’, 2019

ViiV HEALTHCARE—RANKINGS


ViiV’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups familiar with the company: 1st (2018: 1st out of 46 companies)

ViiV’s overall ranking in 2019 among patient groups that work with the company: 1st (2018: 1st out of 46 companies)



Familiar with:

2019 (2018)

Worked with:

2019 (2018)

1st (1st) 1. Patient centricity 1st (1st)

1st (1st) 2. Patient information 1st (1st)

1st (1st) 3. Patient safety 1st (1st)

1st (1st) 4. High-quality products 2nd (1st)

1st (1st) 5i. Transparency: pricing 1st (1st)

1st (1st) 5ii. Transparency: clinical-trial data 1st (1st)

1st (1st) 5iii. Transparency: funding 1st (1st)

1st (1st) 6. Integrity 1st (1st)

1st (1st) 7. Quality of relationships 1st (1st)

1st (1st) 8. Services ‘beyond the pill’ 1st (1st)

1st (1st) 9i. R&D: research 1st (2nd)

1st (1st) 9ii. R&D: development 1st (2nd)

ViiV Healthcare’s NPS over time

2019 +43.8%

2018 +35.3%

2017 +34.2%


PA

GE

15

0


Global edition

APPENDIX I

PROFILING QUESTIONS—GLOBAL EDITION

1

Specialties of respondent patient groups

Headquarters countries of respondent patient groups

Geographic remit of respondent patient groups


PA

GE

15

1


Global edition

SPECIALTIES OF RESPONDENT PATIENT GROUPS

No. of respondent patient groups


PA

GE

15

2


Global edition

COUNTRY HEADQUARTERS OF RESPONDENT PATIENT GROUPS

No. of respondent patient groups

Map created with https://mapchart.net


PA

GE

15

3


Global edition

GEOGRAPHIC REMIT OF RESPONDENT PATIENT GROUPS

Percentage of respondent patient groups


PA

GE

15

4


Global edition

1

APPENDIX II

METHODOLOGY


PA

GE

15

5


Global edition

KEY POINTS OF CONSIDERATION PatientView’s ‘Corporate-Reputation’ study has been

running for nine years (since 2011), allowing a long-

term overview of the pharma industry’s corporate

reputation. The study’s results have, every year,

permitted companies to better understand the latest

views of patient groups, and to learn what patient

representatives currently regard as genuinely patient-

centric policies.

PatientView’s definitions in the ‘Corporate-

Reputation’ survey

PatientView provides only a few definitions for patient

groups responding to the annual survey (some new

definitions were added in the previous year’s survey

of 2018, for clarification purposes):

Familiarity with a company: defined as “feeling

knowledgeable enough about the company to be

able to comment on its activities and products”.

Pharma’s corporate reputation: “meeting the

expectations of patients and patient groups”.

High-quality, useful products: “supplying products of

most benefit to the patients with whom your patient

group is familiar”.

Services ‘beyond the pill’: “understanding the patient

journey, and providing services beyond just the

provision of medicine”.

Engaging patients in drug research/discovery:

“research/discovery before clinical trials begin”.

Engaging patients in drug development: “including

clinical trials, and after”.

METHODOLOGY

METHODOLOGY OF THE 2019 SURVEY:

WHAT WE MEASURE, AND WHY

CHANGES FROM THE 2018 SURVEY

BIASES AND ANOMALIES

Indicators of corporate reputation used in the 2019 survey 1. Having an effective patient-centred strategy.

2. Providing high-quality patient information.

3. Ensuring patient safety.

4. Supplying products of most benefit to patients with

whom the patient groups are familiar.

5i. Being transparent about the company’s pricing

policies.

5ii. Being transparent about, and sharing, the results of

clinical trials.

5iii. Being transparent about its funding of external

stakeholders (for instance, doctors and patient groups).

6. Acting with integrity.

7. Working effectively in partnership with patient groups

(or with patients familiar to the patient group).

8. Providing services ‘beyond the pill’ (specified in the

survey as “understanding the patient journey, and providing

services beyond just the provision of medicine”).

9i. Engaging patients in the company’s drug research/

discovery (specified in the survey as research/discovery

before clinical trials begin).

9ii. Engaging patients in the company’s product

development (specified in the survey as including clinical

trials, and after).


PA

GE

15

6


Global edition

The definitions of most of the other terms used in the

‘Corporate-Reputation’ survey are left to the

discretion of each respondent patient group. Such

freedom is vital, since PatientView is seeking to

measure patient-group perceptions. These

perceptions can vary on important issues (such as the

factors that comprise corporate patient centricity),

according to the country location and the therapy area

of each respondent patient group.

How to measure pharma’s corporate reputation

from a patient perspective?

Before the launch of the first ‘Corporate-Reputation’

study in 2011, PatientView assembled a consensus

view from over 1,000 patient groups on what they

believed contributed to a pharma company’s

corporate reputation. At the same time, PatientView

also asked a number of pharma executives what they

thought constituted the industry’s corporate reputation

(as seen from a patient perspective). The results from

the two outlooks were merged to form the 2011

questionnaire. This tool remained relatively

unchanged for a number of years, to allow important

historical comparisons to be made. New indicators of

corporate reputation were added in 2016-2017, to

reflect the changing (and more demanding)

relationships growing between patient groups and

pharma companies.

Removing bias

Inevitably, bias can creep into any survey. Efforts by

Patient View to reduce bias include:

Offering anonymity. Patient groups responding to the

survey can do so anonymously. Those wishing to be

anonymous and also still obtain a copy of the

‘Corporate-Reputation’ reports—their entitlement as

respondents—are able to leave contact details with

PatientView entirely privately. Datacuts and reports

about the 2019 survey results include the names of

respondent patient groups that prefer their quotes to

be publicly attributed. Approximately one third of

2019’s respondent patient groups supplying the

survey with quotes asked to be attributed.

Accommodating the large variety of companies. The

48 pharma companies included in the 2019

‘Corporate-Reputation’ study vary greatly in size,

specialisation, and country of headquarters. To ‘even

out’ such a diverse field, all assessments about a

specific pharma company are made, not by the whole

respondent sample of patient groups, but only by

those among them claiming familiarity with the

company, or which have worked with the company in

the past five years.

METHODOLOGY

The 20 languages in which the 2019

survey was undertaken

The survey is currently run in 20

languages:

Danish | Dutch | English* | Finnish | French | German | Greek | Hungarian | Italian | Japanese | Korean | Norwegian** | Portuguese | Polish | Russian | Spanish | Swedish | Simplified Chinese** | Traditional Chinese | Turkish.

* The English-language version of the

2019 survey was provided in two

forms (one for the pair of North-

American countries, and the second

for English-speaking countries across

the rest of the world). The division

enabled the different geographically-

determined identities (names) held by

some companies to be presented to

respondent patient groups.

** New languages for the 2019 survey.


PA

GE

15

7


Global edition

Avoiding geographic bias. To reduce geographic bias,

PatientView has increased the number of languages

into which the questionnaire is translated (currently

totalling 20 languages in 2019, up from 18 in the 2018

survey).

Levelling the playing field. When collecting the views

of respondent patient groups, PatientView strives to

ensure that the proportion of patient groups working

with each company, as opposed to those just familiar

with the company, is approximately similar in the

case of each company. This is because patient

groups that work with a company tend to (though not

always) take a more favourable view of that company

than patient groups which do not have a close

association with it. Each company needs to be

assessed by patient groups fairly and equally.

Biases that cannot be avoided

Several factors do lead to unavoidable bias in the

survey:

Patient-group perceptions. As mentioned above,

patient groups generally hold a wide range of views

about pharma (and the industry’s role in healthcare),

contingent on each individual patient-group’s specialty

and country of origin. Some patient groups are more

sceptical of pharma than others. For instance, patient

groups based in Ireland, and mental-health patient

groups worldwide, are more negative about pharma

than, say, rare-disease patient groups located in

Greece. Therefore, companies specialising in mental

health, or which are commented upon by a large

number of Irish patient groups, may find themselves

ranked lower for corporate reputation.

Company size. The bigger multinational pharma

companies attract more patient groups expressing

opinions about them than the smaller companies.

These larger numbers of responses make it harder for

the bigger companies to move up or down the

‘Corporate-Reputation’ rankings year on year—since,

METHODOLOGY

REFINEMENTS TO THE METHODOLOGY

AND ANALYSES FOR 2019

The list of the specialties of

respondent patient groups was

significantly expanded for the 2019

survey, totalling 124 different therapy

areas (listed in Appendix I).

The survey was conducted in two new

languages: Norwegian and simplified

Chinese. Two versions of the English

survey were provided, one for North

America and the second for the rest of

English-speaking world. The division

enabled inclusion of the different

corporate identities (names) for the

two geographic regions.

Sandoz and Vifor were added to the

company listings.

A new entry on access to medicines

was added to the industry-wide part of

the questionnaire.

The term “familiarity with a company”

was defined as “feeling knowledgeable

enough about the company to be able

to comment on its activities and

products”.

The following rephrasing was made to

the indicator measuring the quality of

companies’ products: “In 2019, which

three companies’ products were of

most benefit to the patients with whom

your patient group is familiar?”

As was the case in the 2018 analyses,

two sets of company rankings are

provided:

1) Rankings of 48 pharmaceutical

companies (regardless of their size

or focus of activity).

2) Rankings of the 14 largest

multinational, multi-therapy,

pharmaceutical companies

(enabling more valid peer-to-peer

analyses).


PA

GE

15

8


Global edition

for such movement to occur, many patient groups will

have to change their opinions. The smaller pharma

companies have a greater chance of moving

significantly up or down the rankings over the years;

only a limited number of patient-group opinions need

to change for that to happen.

The ‘Danish bias’. Patient groups from a company’s

own country of headquarters often judge that

company by criteria different to the indicators in the

PatientView questionnaire (Danish patient groups

exemplify the trend). Factors such as being a good

employer, and making contributions to the

community, inevitably influence the responses from

these patient groups. The 2019 survey shows a

national/‘Danish bias’ to be particularly pronounced in

Denmark, Spain, and the USA [for a profile of the

country headquarters of all of 2019’s respondent

patient groups, see Appendix I].

The questionnaire

2019’s ‘Corporate-Reputation’ questionnaire was, as

in previous years, divided into two parts. Questions to

respondent patient groups on the corporate

reputation of:

1) The pharmaceutical industry as a whole. And on

that of ...

2) Individual pharma companies.

Industry-wide questions

Patient groups responding to the November 2019-

February 2020 survey were asked to comment on two

aspects of the corporate reputation of the pharma

industry as a whole:

1) How, in 2019, the pharma industry’s corporate

reputation compared with that of other healthcare

sectors/industries.

2) How good or bad the pharma industry as a whole

was in 2019 at various activities of relevance to

patients and patient groups.

These industry-wide questions to respondent patient

groups not only throw light on the frame of mind of

these patient groups in that particular year, they also

(when the data are filtered accordingly) provide

valuable per-year baselines about the attitudes of

patient groups in different geographic regions and

specialties to the corporate reputation of the pharma

industry as a whole.

Company-specific questions

Respondent patient groups are asked to identify the

three pharma companies they believe “best” at each

of the twelve indicators of corporate reputation. Thus,

the survey is attempting to distinguish between

companies that merely perform certain activities,

and those that respondent patient groups judge to

excel at the process.

The companies assessed

A pharma company is included in the 2019 ‘Corporate

-Reputation’ analyses if the 2019 survey received a

minimum of 84 completed responses from patient

groups stating familiarity with that particular company.

48 companies qualified for inclusion in the 2019

analyses. In alphabetical order:

AbbVie | Acorda Therapeutics | Allergan | Almirall |

Amgen | Astellas Pharma | AstraZeneca | Bayer | Bial

| Biogen | Boehringer Ingelheim | Bristol-Myers Squibb

| Celgene | Chiesi Farmaceutici | CSL Behring |

Daiichi Sankyo | Eisai | Eli Lilly (Lilly) | Ferring |

Gedeon Richter | Gilead Sciences (including Kite

Pharma) | Grifols | Grünenthal | GSK | Ipsen | Janssen

(Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson) |

LEO Pharma | Lundbeck | Menarini | Merck KGaA/

METHODOLOGY


PA

GE

15

9


Global edition

EMD Serono | Merck & Co (known as MSD outside

Canada and the US) | Mundipharma | Novartis | Novo

Nordisk | Octapharma | Otsuka | Pfizer | Pierre Fabre

Laboratories | Roche (known as Chugai in Japan, and

as Genentech in the USA) | Sanofi | Servier | Takeda

(including its 2018-2019 acquisition, Shire) | Teva |

UCB | Vertex | Vifor | ViiV Healthcare.

How final company scores are reached

percentages provided in the PatientView ‘Corporate-

Reputation’ reports are calculated for each individual

company based only on the opinions of the

respondent patient groups claiming familiarity with that

company, and/or which work (or partner) with that

company. Rankings for corporate reputation are

calculated on the basis of three decimal places.

Net Promoter Score (NPS)

NPS is a standard management tool. It asks whether a

customer would recommend a company to another

person. As such, NPS is typically used to measure a

customer’s loyalty to the company.

In accordance with standard NPS measures,

PatientView’s NPS question asked respondent patient

groups to score their likelihood of recommending a

company to another patient group on a scale of 0 to

10 (with ‘10’ being a definite recommendation of the

company, and ‘0’ being definitely no recommendation

of the company). The NPS score is calculated as

shown in the diagram on the previous page.

The task of measuring the corporate reputation of

individual pharma companies throws up significant

differences between the NPS and PatientView’s

methodology. NPS primarily measures customer

satisfaction. PatientView’s methodology, by contrast,

measures patient-groups’ perceptions of companies’

performance at various indicators of corporate

reputation, and at different activities of importance to

patients and patient groups. Importantly, these patient-

group perceptions are driven by the respondents’

understanding of the companies they deem “best” at

any activity. NPS does have one advantage over the

PatientView methodology, however: its results are

presented as pure scores, rather than as rankings (the

latter can create artificial hierarchies in cases when

only tiny differences exist between the results of one

company and another).

PatientView has included an NPS question in the

‘Corporate-Reputation’ survey for three years now

(2019, 2018, and 2017). The experience indicates that

NPS appears valid only when a significant number of

respondent patient groups answer the NPS question.

Therefore, PatientView has only calculated the NPS

for any company when a minimum of 30 respondent

patient groups answered the NPS question about that

company.

Analysis provided for each company, 2019

The following ‘Corporate-Reputation’ analyses are

provided for each company:

Number of respondent patient groups claiming

familiarity with the company, 2019.

Number of respondent patient groups saying that

they had a working relationship with the company,

2019.

Profiles of respondent patient groups familiar, and

working, with the company, 2019: country

METHODOLOGY

Note about the tiers

Companies are allocated into tiers for their corporate

reputation, as follows:

Rankings 1-16 = Top tier.

Rankings 17-32 = Middle tier.

Rankings 33-48 = Lower tier.


PA

GE

16

0


Global edition

headquarters; specialties; geographic remit; and

types of relationships with the pharmaceutical

company.

Company scores among respondent patient groups

familiar with the company, and which worked with

the company, for each of the 12 indicators of

corporate reputation, 2019.

Percentage of respondent patient groups that

worked with the company, but which also worked

with other companies, 2019.


respondent patient groups familiar with the company,

2019 v. 2018.



company, 2019 v. 2018.



2015-2019.

Company rankings for each of the 12 indicators,

according to respondent patient groups familiar, or

working, with the company, 2019 v. 2018.


corporate tiers for each of the 12 indicators (in the

higher, the middle, or the lower tier), as assessed by


2019.


corporate tiers for each of the 12 indicators (in the

higher, the middle, or the lower tier), as assessed by


company, 2019.

The company’s Net Promoter Score, 2019.

The company’s Net Promoter Score, 2017-2019.

———————————————-

METHODOLOGY

Contact details: PatientView Ltd Registered office: One Fleet Place, London, EC4M 7WS, UK Tel: +44-(0)1547-520-965 Email: [email protected] Registered in England, Number: 3944382 Data protection registration number: Z7133076 VAT registration number: GB-760-985-885

Copyright© 2020 PatientView Ltd ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIS BOOKLET IS THE PROPERTY OF PATIENTVIEW, AND NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PERMISSION, OR PASSED ON TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF PATIENTVIEW

€¦ · CONTENTS 1 Executive summary 13 Patient-group relationships with pharma, 2019 16...

Documents

Transcript of €¦ · CONTENTS 1 Executive summary 13 Patient-group relationships with pharma, 2019 16...