Medical Research Map for Finland

ReportMedical Research Map for Finland03/2016

Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

Medical Research Map is a joint effort of Sitra, Finnish medical faculties and Pharma Industry Finland to create an overview on the Finnish medical research market and to discover new cooperation opportunities between universities and pharma companies. Ernst & Young Oy (“EY”) has on Sitra’s request interviewed 24 experts from pharma companies, universities and university hospitals, covering all Finnish medical faculties and around 75% of pharmaceutical business in Finland. In addition, an online questionnaire was conducted to find the most relevant research areas and methods from the perspectives of global pharma industry and Finnish medical faculties.

2

Background

3


Today Finland Has Multiple Strategies Relevant to Medical Research Ecosystem:

• National Genome Strategy (2015) - Ministry of Social and Health Affairs, Sitra facilitated and supported the process

• eHealth and eSocial strategy 2020 (2015) - Ministry of Social and Health Affairs

• Health Sector Growth Strategy for Research and Innovation Activities (2014) - the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, the Ministry of Education and Culture, Tekes (the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation) and the Academy of Finland

4


In addition, Sitra is facilitating a new initiative to create a national health and well-being data operator to Finland. The operator is planned to be ready in 2017 offering one-stop data service for the medical research ecosystem. Find more information on the Isaacus project:www.sitra.fi/en/well-being/well-being-data

5

http://www.sitra.fi/en/well-being/well-being-data

http://www.sitra.fi/en/well-being/well-being-data


Key Objectives of the Medical Research Map

To point out the strengths, weaknesses and potential of the Finnish medical research sector

To explore the key medical research areas and research methods from the perspective of the global pharmaceutical industry and Finnish

universitiesTo explore ways to strengthen the public-private cooperation

To discover most attractive opportunities for Finnish medical researchTo suggest recommendations for what should be done to enhance the

productiveness in the Finnish medical research sector

6

Research results

7


Overview of the Finnish Medical Research Sector

Strengths:• Excellent quality of research: Skillful scientists,

high data quality and timely delivery• Excellent public health care and extensive

databases that enable an unique access to the Finnish population and genomes

• Finnish patients are committed to research and doctors are open to new innovations

• Strong technology knowhow, innovative start-ups and their potential implications to medical research

• Increased interest in the cooperation between universities, hospitals and pharma companies

8


Overview of the Finnish Medical Research Sector

Weaknesses• Medical research landscape is fragmented -

stronger units and a common vision needed• The slow progression of the ‘social welfare and

health care reform’ creates uncertainty to the field• Lack of public funding & resources for research,

incl. facilities, researchers, research nurses • Relatively high costs and bureaucracy, slow market

access of innovations• Inadequate processes and lack of training for

commercialization of innovations • Medical research, and especially clinical research,

is losing popularity among students

9

10

Which are the most attractive opportunities for Finnish medical research?

Competitive advantage and strong tradition in the areas of cancer, neurology and cardiovascular diseases• Finland should continue to allocate resources to the top units of

traditionally strong areas of research• Other attractive opportunities based on responses are metabolomics,

medical imagining, diabetes and cell and gene therapy

Biobanks combined with clinical data • Finnish biobank law is modern and advanced• Finland should take the opportunity in combining clinical data with the

vast genome data and the development of personalized medicine

Use of patient registers • Finnish genetic heritage is one of the best in the world because of the

population structure• Finland has good clinical data and high-quality registers• Patient databases would enable the real world evidence for clinical

research, although the bureaucracy around the use and the combination of different registers is quite heavy

Combining medical know-how with technological expertise and digitalization• Finland has readiness and know-how to apply technological innovations

to patient care e.g. in the areas of electronic monitoring• Start-ups and joint institutes have been established to bring together

multidisciplinary expertise in life sciences and medical technology



Recommendations

According to the Medical Research Map participants, Finland has clear strengths

but also some concrete development areas in the medical research field. The

following pages will elaborate on this and suggest potential steps to be taken, suggested by the pharmaceutical

companies and Finnish medical faculties.

11

Making use of digital know-how to create new business and innovations

• Interdisciplinary cooperation between researchers, engineers/ICT specialists and medical professionals enable the development of new tools and products

Clinical research has been one of the key strengths of the Finnish health care system and medical research. This position should be restored and strengthened by following measures:

• New funding system and tools should be created to replace the EVO funding• Potential, additional funding sources should be recognized and utilized more

efficiently: public-private partnerships, international funding institutions and instruments (e.g. EU funding, foundations)

• The barriers for doing clinical research should be lowered as much as possible from the perspective of funding, infrastructure and culture. There could be arrangements where nurses and doctors could do e.g. 50/50 clinical work and research. The infrastructure also requires certain number of permanent and competent research nurses

12Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •

What should be done next – recommendations for future (1/3)



Minimizing the level of bureaucracy and ensuring smooth approval processes• Finland should make sure that the approval processes and compensation policies

are as transparent as possible.• For example, the definition of non-interventional research in Finland is strict

compared to other countries in Europe. The new EU regulation on Good Clinical Practice will harmonize the definition of non-intervention research in the EU. The regulation has to be implemented by end of 2018, but early implementation of the legislation would give a sign of innovation-friendly environment

Enhancing national cooperation• National top unit/units would enhance the marketing of Finnish know-how as a

whole, not as separate areas of skills. They would also enhance cooperation in research infrastructure and financing as well as bring the groups of patients and scientists together. A big enough program with several projects would attract international attention

• Finland would benefit from one single-point-of contact to bring supply and demand together as well as to find the relevant contacts



Enhancing commercialization of innovations• There should be more business activities in relation to the number of scientific

publications• For example in the UK the government links the funding to the potential impact of

the research to be done. Thus, the universities are very much geared up to identifying the research that will have impact and will translate into tangible benefit to the society

Enable more effective knowledge sharing • Establish exchange programs between universities and pharma companies and

increase the mobility of Finnish scientists in general• Organize more national and international conferences and events to both share

knowledge and market Finnish researchSecuring that research funding is adequate, prioritized and long-

term enough• Rather than 2-4 years, the funding should be +5 years to create long-term

cooperation and development• Especially the clinical research is suffering from the lack of funding and resources


Key findings According to the survey and interviews, the competitive advantage of Finnish medical research is seen to be related• to the research of cancer,

cardiovascular, metabolic and neurological diseases

• to biobanks and patient databases and especially to the ability to combine clinical data with the genome data

• to the prospect of applying technological know-how to health care

15


Key findings The Finnish medical research environment is fragmented and that is limiting the collaboration between the core players in academia and industry. With more transparency the collaboration could be significantly increased and new business and research opportunities generated. The lack of concentration in research areas, strong bureaucracy or slow response time by authorities, internationally utmost strict interpretation of medical regulations and the lack of ”strong research unit(s)” are some of the most frequently mentioned weaknesses Clinical research, which is currently the most important medical research method in Finland, is suffering from adequate resources, funding and facilities.

16

Figures

17

18

Cancer and neurology are the most significant research areas for global pharma companies and Finnish universities in the future

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Antidotes and adverse effect prevention Ear, Nose and Throat

Ophthalmology

Universities

Medical Devices

DiagnosticsVaccines, immunoglobulins and immunosera

Companies*

Vitamins, trace elements and enteric nutrition

CancerHematology

Electrolytes, fluid balance and parenteral nutrition Anesthesia

Pain, fever and rheumatic disorders

Dermatology

Endocrinology and metabolism

Allergy

Neurology

Psychiatry

Gynecology and Obstetrics, sex steroids

Urology

Gastrointestinal

Respiratory

Cardiovascular

Antimicrobials

How do you estimate the intensiveness / importance of the research area for your company / university in the future (2020)?

*Results are weighted with relation to the global R&D budget. The combined R&D budget of the involved pharma companies amounts to EUR 46.99 billion.

Average from scale 1-5

Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 •Other research areas of interest included Tropical diseases, Dentistry, Biosimilars, Sensors and nanotechnology, Nursing Sciences , Microbiome and Medical imaging.

19

Companies and universities estimate the importance of medical devices, vaccines, immunoglobulins and immunosera to increase by 2020

CancerNeurology

HematologyPain, fever and rheumatic disorders

DermatologyOphthalmology

DiagnosticsCardiovascular

RespiratoryEndocrinology and metabolism

AllergyAntimicrobials

PsychiatryVaccines, immunoglobulins and immunosera

Medical DevicesGastrointestinal

UrologyGynecology and Obstetrics, sex steroidsAntidotes and adverse effect prevention

Ear, Nose and ThroatVitamins, trace elements and enteric nutrition

AnesthesiaElectrolytes, fluid balance and parenteral nutrition

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5UniversitiesCompanies

The change in the intensiveness/importance of the research area for companies and universities currently (2015) and in the future (2020)

See also page 26 for the graph for the change from 2015 to 2020.

- Diagnostics and medical devices are strongly linked and there are a lot of activities related to the tech cooperation in the academia side at the moment.

- Traditional pharma companies lower interest in medical devices could be explained by the vast number of med tech companies that are focused specifically on devices.

- There could be limited number of sponsors for universities in some research areas in the future (Antimicrobials, Gastrointestinal, Gynecology, Antidotes etc.)

The change in the grade unit (0-5)


20

1. Cancer

Cancer: What do you think are the principal research techniques and methods for your company / university?

8%Genomics 10%

8%Molecular biology 7%

8%Cellular biology 7%

8%Basic Research 7%

Transcriptomics 7%6%

Metabolomics 10%6%

Proteomics 10%6%

Epigenomics 7%6%

Translational Research

Other 0%3%

Pharmacogenomics 7%6%

7%

10%Pre-Clinical research 10%

11%Clinical Research 12%

14%

UniversitiesPharma companies

56 % of the companies and 40 % of the universities estimated the importance of Cancer as 5

- The Helsinki University Central Hospital Comprehensive Cancer Center is the first Nordic institution accredited by the Organisation of European Cancer institutes (OECI).

- Finalizing and implementing the plan for national cancer center could enhance common treatment practices, networking, systems and registers and would further attract clinical research and make clinical research more efficient.

- It seems that university hospitals and private clinics are currently competing, but there could be room for cooperation e.g. in the area of follow-up examination.

2

95

4

1

2

25

4

3

How do you estimate the intensiveness / importance of the research area for your company in the future (2020)?

How do you estimate the intensiveness / importance of the research area for your university in the future (2020)?


21

2. Neurology

Neurology: What do you think are the principal research techniques and methods for your company / university?

0%2%



Metabolomics 5%7%

Proteomics 8%7%

Epigenomics 8%7%

Translational Research 8%

Other

Genomics 11%7%

Molecular biology 8%7%

Cellular biology 8%7%

Basic Research 8%9%

Pre-Clinical research 8%15%

Clinical Research 13%20%

7%

UniversitiesPharma Companies

56 % of the companies and 60 % of the universities estimated the importance of Neurology as 5

41

02

09

0

345

12

31

00

10

45

0123

- Strong know-how of neurological diseases is combined with the top expertise in medical imagining and diagnostics in Finland.

- The three top areas of research are Alzheimer disease, epilepsy and cerebral infarction.

- Research in neurology is more fragmented than in cancer, although cooperation exists between different research units in the areas of e.g. Alzheimer, multiple sclerosis and epilepsy.




22

3. Hematology

Hematology: What do you think are the principal research techniques and methods for your company / university?

0%2%


Metabolomics 7%5%

Proteomics 7%5%

Epigenomics 7%5%

Genomics 14%5%

Transcriptomics 7%

Other



Translational Research 7%9%

Basic Research 0%9%



7%


38 % of the companies and one university estimated the importance of Hematology as 5.

41

21

26

012345

00

13

01

01

32

45

- Pharma companies estimate that the importance of hematology will increase 11 % in five years time.




23

4. Cardiovascular

Cardiovascular: What do you think are the principal research techniques and methods for your company / university?

8%7%


Basic Research 10%9%

Genomics 10%11%



Other 0%

Pharmacogenomics


Metabolomics 8%5%

Proteomics 8%5%

Epigenomics 8%5%


Translational Research 8%7%

2%


60% of the universities and 25 % of pharma companies consider Cardiovascular as one of the most important research areas.

1

53

2

14

012345

00

10

13

3

012

45

- Academia has a long tradition in the research of cardiovascular diseases as they have for long been the most common causes of death in the Finnish population.

- Pharma companies estimate that the importance of cardiovascular research will increase almost 25 % in five years time.




• Virtually all research methods/techniques seem to be used regardless of the research area (except Medical Devices, Anesthesia, Vitamins/trace elements, Antidotes and Electrolytes/fluid balance) making the field of methods quite complex.

• The most important research methods for pharma companies are clinical (21 %), pre-clinical (13 %), basic research (9 %) and molecular biology (7 %).

• Academia consider clinical research (20 %), molecular biology (11 %), cellular biology (9 %), basic research (9 %) and pre-clinical research (8,5 %) as the most important research methods.

24

Clinical research is the leading research method in Finland

What do you think are the principal research techniques and methods for your company / university?

7%7%


Molecular biology 9%7%Basic Research 8%

9%Pre-Clinical research 8% 13%


Epigenomics 5%

Translational Research

Other 0% 5%Proteomics 8%

5%Pharmacogenomics 7%

5%Transcriptomics 6%

5%Metabolomics 6%5%

Genomics 10%7%

4% UniversitiesPharma Companies


Sitra • Ernst & Young Oy • 12.2.2016 • 25

Appendices

Background• The Finnish government has recently

published its government program that aims at strengthening the cooperation between higher education institutions and business life

• Sitra has been suggested by the pharma and university representatives to prepare an overview report to support the initiative and strengthen the implementation of the health sector growth strategy

• EY supported Sitra in preparing the report• The report will be utilized as a part of

implementation of the national growth strategy for health sector

Objectives• To explore the key medical research areas and research methods

from the perspective of the global pharmaceutical industry and Finnish universities

• To explore ways to strengthen the public-private cooperation • To discover most attractive opportunities for Finnish medical research• To suggest recommendations for what should be done to enhance the

productiveness in the Finnish medical research sector

Method• Online questionnaire in order to clarify the most attractive areas of

research for pharma companies and universities (no. of respondents: 16 pharma companies, 5 universities and 1 field of business expert)

• Qualitative interviews to find out the pros and cons of the Finnish medical research (no. of interviewees: 12 pharma companies, 10 university representatives and 2 field of business experts)

• The combined R&D budget of the involved pharma companies amounts to EUR 46.99 billion

Project steering group• A steering group* consisting of Kalervo Väänänen (Rector, University of Turku, Chairman of UNIFI), Oliver Rittgen

(CEO, Bayer Nordic, Chairman of the Team Finland Health steering group) and Jussi Merikallio (CEO, Pharma Industry Finland) as well as Sitra’s representatives Ville Koiste and Juha Vapaavuori have commented on and provided expertise and valuable advice on the results in the final report.

26

*Steering group members have not seen the individual research data, but only the results presented in the final report.


This report is a joint effort of Sitra, Finnish medical faculties and Pharma Industry Finland to create an overview on the Finnish medical research market and to discover new cooperation opportunities between universities and pharma companies. Ernst & Young Oy (“EY”) has on Sitra’s request interviewed 25 experts from pharma companies, universities and university hospitals, covering 100% of medical faculties and around 75% of pharmaceutical business in Finland. In addition, an online questionnaire was conducted to find the most relevant research areas and methods from the perspectives of global pharma industry and Finnish medical faculties.

Key findings The Finnish medical research environment is fragmented limiting currently the collaboration between the core players in academia and industry. Some examples of excellent cooperation between universities and/or universities and pharma companies exist and interesting projects have been started e.g. in the biobank field, but with more transparency the collaboration could be significantly increased and new business and research opportunities generated. The lack of concentration in research areas, bureaucracy or slow response time by authorities, internationally utmost strict interpretation of medical regulations and the lack of ”strong research unit(s)” are some of the most frequently mentioned weaknesses for the Finnish medical research environment by the interviewees.Clinical research, which is currently the most important medical research method in Finland, is suffering from adequate resources and facilities. However, based on interviews corrective actions are easy to carry out and should be realized in a short term.The academic research has concentrated on certain national diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular, metabolic and neurological diseases which are also recognized by the pharmaceutical industry as the core research fields. At the same time fields such as psychiatry, gastrointestinal and gynecology and obstetrics have been identified in which considerable activities are carried out in Finnish Universities but in which global pharmaceutical industry has not expressed any significant interest. Both the core fields and the so far unexplored areas need to be analyzed further in order to find better collaboration opportunities in shared research areas and universities will need to consider defining a strategy for non-shared areas.The competitive advantage of Finnish medical research is seen to be related, firstly, to the research of cancer and neurology, secondly, to biobanks and patient databases and especially to the ability to combine clinical data with the genome data, and thirdly, to the prospect of applying technological know-how to health care.

Executive summary and a way forward (1/2)


RecommendationTo accelerate international research initiatives and partnerships with the industry, Finnish universities need more national and interdisciplinary collaboration. Competition takes place on an international level and therefore national collaboration is essential. Related to this, Finland needs a large enough national research unit or units (e.g. National Genome Center was mentioned), more effective knowledge sharing and marketing efforts to attract international investments and pharma industry collaboration. Response time of data inquiries and ethical evaluations should be more efficient and medical regulations should be clearer.A threat of diminishing public funding was mentioned several times during the interviews and especially clinical research was mentioned to suffer from shortage of resources and facilities. Government backing in terms of (new) funding instruments and resources could support the key research areas and strengthen their competitiveness. Strategic choices regarding key research areas should be done on a national level to actualize the underlying potential (such as biobanks).There are clear shortages in funding side, especially cutting the free research budgets (EVO) of university hospitals. Funding should be increased in these sector to ensure the resources needed.

Vision for FinlandIn the future, Finland will be a leading hub of medical research that utilizes country’s rich digital data sources (e.g. biobank, genome and patient databases) and ICT know-how. To support the flourishing research ecosystem, Finland should be able to offer funding and test bed facilities for research projects.As we are moving towards the era of personalized medicine, Finland’s main assets - high quality public healthcare system, digital talent, electronic health registers and biobanks - could attract more international investments and top researchers. With the support of the government (e.g. national strategies related to health sector), more active collaboration between pharma industry and universities as well as national initiatives such as the national data operator, Finland will be an attractive location for global pharmaceutical companies for R&D activities. This will create new jobs, ensure top level healthcare system and more personalized and effective treatments for Finnish citizens.

28

Executive summary and a way forward (2/2)


29

In total, 17 companies, 5 universities and 2 field of business experts participated in the research

Interviewed companies

AbbVie OyAmgen ABBayer OyDiscovery Partnerships with Academia, a unit of GlaxoSmithKlineForendo Pharma LtdMSDNovartis Finland OyNovo Nordisk Farma OyOrion OyjOy H. Lundbeck AbRoche OyCompany A

Interviewed academia representatives

University of Helsinki, 2 interviewsUniversity of Turku, 2 interviewsUniversity of Tampere, 2 interviewsUniversity of Eastern Finland, 2 interviewsUniversity of Oulu, 2 interviews2 expert interviews

Online questionnaire replies

AbbVie OyBayer OyBiotie Therapies OyjBoehringer- Ingelheim Finland KyDiscovery Partnerships with Academia, a unit of GlaxoSmithKlineForendo Pharma OyJanssen, Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & JohnsonNovartis Finland Novo Nordisk A/SOrion Pharma R&DOy H. Lundbeck AbRoche OyCompany A Company B Company C Company D University of Eastern FinlandUniversity of HelsInkiUniversity of OuluUniversity of Tampere University of Turku


• The study includes only a limited amount of pharma companies, although they represent close to 75 % of the industry in Finland

• The participating universities represent the whole medical research landscape in Finland

• The weighting process for pharma companies:

30

The results are weighted according to the pharma companies global R&D budget

Company A grade(0-5)

Company A global R&D budget

Total of all global R&D budgetsx


31

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

Antidotes and adverse effect prevention Ear, Nose and Throat

Ophthalmology

Vitamins, trace elements and enteric nutrition

Cancer

Hematology

Electrolytes, fluid balance and parenteral nutrition Anesthesia

Pain, fever and rheumatic disorders

Dermatology

Endocrinology and metabolismAllergy

Neurology

Psychiatry


Urology

Gastrointestinal

Respiratory

Cardiovascular

Antimicrobials

Vaccines, immunoglobulins and immunosera

Companies*

Universities

Medical Devices

Diagnostics

*Results are weighted with relation to the global R&D budget.


Other research areas of interest included Tropical diseases, Dentistry, Biosimilars, Sensors and nanotechnology, Nursing Sciences , Microbiome and Medical imaging.

How do you estimate the intensiveness / importance of the research area for your company / university currently (2015)?Arrows represent the change from 2015 to 2020


32

Question 1a: How do you estimate the intensiveness / importance of the research area for your company currently (2015) and in the future (2020)? Weighted according to the R&D budget

2,7

1,9

0,00,1

0,20,5

0,60,6

1,61,6

1,71,8

1,81,9

2,02,3

2,42,5

2,62,8

3,03,4

3,83,9

4,2

0,00,1

0,20,70,6

0,61,61,6

2,31,9

1,82,2

2,7

3,12,7

3,03,3

3,84,2

4,14,3

Antimicrobials

NeurologyCancer

Electrolytes, fluid balance and parenteral nutritionAnesthesia

Vitamins, trace elements and enteric nutritionEar, Nose and Throat

Antidotes and adverse effect preventionGynecology and Obstetrics, sex steroids

UrologyGastrointestinalMedical Devices

Vaccines, immunoglobulins and immunoseraPsychiatry

AllergyEndocrinology and metabolism

RespiratoryCardiovascular

DiagnosticsOphtalmologyDermatology

Pain, fever and rheumatic disordersHematology


FutureCurrent


33

Question 1b: How do you estimate the intensiveness / importance of the research area for your university (2015) currently and in the future (2020)?

1,82,0

2,22,2

2,62,62,6

2,82,82,8

3,03,0

3,03,2

3,43,43,4

3,63,6

3,84,04,0

4,2

2,0

4,2

1,8

2,23,0

3,62,82,8

3,03,03,0

3,83,2

3,03,6

3,43,2

3,43,8

3,44,2

3,84,2

Antidotes and adverse effect preventionElectrolytes, fluid balance and parenteral nutrition

Vitamins, trace elements and enteric nutritionAntimicrobials

Medical DevicesEar, Nose and Throat

AnesthesiaOphtalmology

Pain, fever and rheumatic disordersRespiratory

Vaccines, immunoglobulins and immunoseraHematology

DermatologyDiagnostics

AllergyGynecology and Obstetrics, sex steroids

GastrointestinalPsychiatry

UrologyNeurology

CancerEndocrinology and metabolism

Cardiovascular


FutureCurrent


34

Question 2: What do you think are the principal research techniques and methods for your company*/university?

Antidotes and adverse effect preventionVitamins, trace elements and enteric nutrition

Electrolytes, fluid balance and parenteral nutritionEar, Nose and Throat

Medical DevicesAnesthesia

OphtalmologyVaccines, immunoglobulins and immunosera

AllergyDiagnostics

GastrointestinalDermatology

RespiratoryAntimicrobials

UrologyPain, fever and rheumatic disorders

73

11

47


62

8

46

Hematology 57

7

45

Psychiatry

50

7

41

Endocrinology and metabolism

50

12

40

Cardiovascular

48

3630

12

38

NeurologyCancer 113

8483

OtherTranslational ResearchClinical ResearchPre-Clinical researchBasic ResearchPharmacogenomicsTranscriptomics

ProteomicsMetabolomics

EpigenomicsGenomicsMolecular biologyCellular biology

*Results are not weighted (companies).

Number of replies


- The research results of our study are strongly in line with the division of clinical study research areas in 2014

- The number of studies related to Antimicrobials and Gastrointestinal are relatively high compared to the estimation of the areas’ importance in our research (1,8 and 1,6)

- The number of studies related to Neurology and Dermatology are relatively low compared to the higher estimation of the areas’ importance in our research (4,1 and 3,3)

35

Comparison with other studies - Top three areas for clinical studies based on other survey and initiated by the pharma industry were cancer, hematology and antimicrobials in 2014

Research area No of studies % of total

Cancer 99 35,6 %Hematology 27 9,7 %Antimicrobials 19 6,8 %Pain, fever and rheumatic disorders 19 6,8 %Respiratory 19 6,8 %Endocrinology and metabolism 16 5,8 %Neurology 16 5,8 %Gastrointestinal 15 5,4 %Cardiovascular 11 4,0 %Ophthalmology 9 3,2 %Dermatology 8 2,9 %Psychiatry 6 2,2 %Urology 4 1,4 %Vaccines, immunoglobulins and immunosera 4 1,4 %Gynecology and Obstetrics, sex steroids 3 1,1 %Diagnostics 2 0,7 %Ear, Nose and Throat 1 0,4 %Allergy 0 0,0 %Anesthesia 0 0,0 %Antidotes and adverse effect prevention 0 0,0 %Electrolytes, fluid balance and parenteral nutrition 0 0,0 %Medical Devices 0 0,0 %Vitamins, trace elements and enteric nutrition 0 0,0 %

Total 278

No of clinical studies initiated by the participating pharma industry representatives (project online questionnaire respondents) in 2014

The data is based on the search from ClinicalTrials.gov including all phase I-IV studies (phase I including only cancer) initiated between 01/01/2014-31/12/2014 by the 16 pharma sector respondents.


• sitra.fi

• Facebook.com/SitraFund• @SitraFund

Building a successful Finland for tomorrowMore information:Ville Koiste, Sitra [email protected] Vapaavuori, Sitra [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Health & Medicine

Medical Research Map for Finland