Wegovy maker Novo Nordisk warns of layoffs as competition grows
Novo Nordisk – which became Europe's most valuable company, worth $650bn, last year on booming sales of Wegovy – is facing a pivotal moment as the medicine loses market share and sees sales growth slow, especially in the United States.
It has warned of far slower growth this year, in part due to compounders who have been allowed to make copycat drugs based on the same ingredients as Wegovy due to shortages. Novo Nordisk, which according to its website has 77,000 employees, cut its full-year sales and profit forecasts last week, wiping $95bn off its market value since.
The slide is a vast and abrupt turnaround for the firm that has been one of the world's hottest investment stories, which led to a rapid expansion of manufacturing and sales capacity. Now the company is eyeing potential cost-cutting measures.
Layoffs loom
'We probably won't be able to avoid layoffs,' Jorgensen told Danish broadcaster DR. 'When you have to adjust a company, there are some areas where you have to have fewer people, some [areas] where you have to be smaller.'
He added, though, that any decision on layoffs would be in the hands of the incoming CEO, company veteran Maziar Mike Doustdar, who takes over on Thursday.
On a media call, Jorgensen said the market for copycat versions of Wegovy's class of drugs – known as GLP-1 receptor agonists – was of 'equal size to our business' and compounded versions of Wegovy were sold at a 'much lower price point'.
In May, Novo Nordisk said it expected many of the roughly one million US patients using compounded GLP-1 drugs to switch to branded treatments after a US Food and Drug Administration ban on compounded copies of Wegovy took effect on May 22, and it expected compounding to wind down in the third quarter.
However, finance chief Karsten Munk Knudsen said on Wednesday that more than one million US patients were still using compounded GLP-1s and that the company's lowered outlook has 'not assumed a reduction in compounding' this year.
'The obesity market is volatile,' Knudsen told analysts when asked under what circumstances the company could see negative growth in the last six months of the year. The low end of the firm's new full-year guidance range would be for 'unforeseen events', such as stronger pricing pressure in the US than forecast, he said.
The lower end of the range would imply sales around 150 billion Danish krone ($23bn) in the second half of 2025, compared with 157 billion krone ($24.5bn) in the same period last year.
Knudsen reiterated that the company was pursuing multiple strategies, including lawsuits against compounding pharmacies, to halt unlawful mass compounding.
Jorgensen said the company was encouraged by the latest US prescription data for Wegovy. While the drug was overtaken earlier this year by rival Eli Lilly's Zepbound in terms of US prescriptions, that lead has narrowed in the past month.
Second-quarter sales of Wegovy rose by 36 percent in the US and more than quadrupled in markets outside the US compared to a year ago, Novo Nordisk said.
While Wegovy's US pricing held steady in the quarter, the company expected deeper erosion in the key US market in the second half, due to a greater portion of sales expected from the direct-to-consumer or cash-pay channel, as well as higher rebates and discounts to insurers, Knudsen said.
He said Novo Nordisk was expanding its US direct-to-consumer platform, NovoCare, launched in March, and may need to pursue similar 'cash sales' directly to patients, outside of insurance channels, in some markets outside the US.
Cost cuts
Novo Nordisk reiterated its full-year earnings expectations on Wednesday after last week's profit warning.
Jorgensen said the company was acting to 'ensure efficiencies in our cost base' as it announced it would terminate eight research and development projects.
'There seems to be a larger R&D clean-out than usual, but we do not know if this reflects a strategic re-assessment or just a coincidence,' Jefferies analysts said in a note.
Investors have questioned whether the company can stay competitive in the booming weight-loss drug market. Several equity analysts have cut their price targets and recommendations on the stock since last week.
Shares in Novo Nordisk plunged 30 percent last week – their worst weekly performance in over two decades. The stock has continued to tumble since the market opened in New York. As of 12pm local time (16:00 GMT), the pharmaceutical giant was down by more than 3.3 percent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
31 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump to nominate ‘loyalist' Stephen Miran to the Federal Reserve board
United States President Donald Trump has said he will nominate Stephen Miran, a top economic adviser to the US Federal Reserve's board of governors, for four months, temporarily filling a vacancy while continuing his search for a longer-term appointment. The president announced his decision on Thursday. Miran, the chair of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, would fill a seat vacated by Governor Adriana Kugler, a Biden appointee who is stepping down Friday. Kugler is returning to her tenured professorship at Georgetown University. The term expires January 31, 2026, and is subject to approval by the Senate. Trump said the White House continues to search for someone to fill the 14-year Fed board seat that opens on February 1. Miran, who served as an economic adviser in the Department of the Treasury during the first Trump administration, has advocated for a far-reaching overhaul of Fed governance that would include shortening board member terms, putting them under the clear control of the president, and ending the 'revolving door' between the executive branch and the Fed and nationalising the Fed's 12 regional banks. The appointment is Trump's first opportunity to exert more control over the Fed, one of the few remaining federal agencies that is still independent. Trump has relentlessly criticised the current chair, Jerome Powell, for keeping short-term interest rates unchanged – a major point of contention between the White House and the central bank. Miran has been a major defender of Trump's income tax cuts and tariff hikes, arguing that the combination will generate enough economic growth to reduce budget deficits. He has also played down the risk that Trump's tariffs will generate higher inflation, a major source of concern for Powell. Trump has unsuccessfully pressured Fed policymakers – who include Powell, his six fellow board members and the 12 Fed bank presidents – to lower rates. Appointing Miran to the central bank, even in a placeholder role, gives the president a potentially more direct route to pursue his desire for easier monetary policy. 'Trump loyalist' It is unclear how much time Miran would have at the Fed to try to deploy his ideas, or even vote on interest rates, though. All Fed nominees require Senate confirmation, a process that includes a hearing before the Senate Banking Committee, a vote from that panel advancing the nomination and a series of floor votes before the full Senate, where Democrats have been slowing the pace of approval for Trump appointments. 'Stephen Miran is a Trump loyalist and one of the chief architects of the President's chaotic tariff policy that has hurt Americans' wallets,' the Senate Banking Committee's top-ranking Democrat, Elizabeth Warren, said on X following the announcement. 'I'll have tough questions for him about whether he'd serve the American people or merely serve Donald Trump.' The Senate is on summer recess until September 2. There are just four policy-setting meetings, including one on September 16-17, before the end of what would be Miran's term. Fed policymakers kept the policy rate in its current 4.25 percent to 4.5 percent range at their July meeting, with Powell citing somewhat elevated inflation and the concern that Trump's tariffs could keep it that way as reasons to keep policy restrictive. Several central bankers this month have raised concerns about labour market weakness, and at least a couple have expressed renewed confidence that tariffs may not push up inflation as much as earlier thought. Those views echo the arguments made by two Fed governors who last month dissented on the decision to leave policy on hold.
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
CDC reports ultraprocessed foods comprise more than half of the US diet
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States has released the summary of a new survey confirming that ultra-processed foods make up a majority of Americans' caloric intake. The study, published on Thursday, involved tracking the meals and snacks of Americans from August 2021 to August 2023. During that period, 55 percent of the calories consumed by Americans came from ultra-processed foods, according to a mean calculated by the survey authors. That number was even higher for younger people involved in the study. Youths ranging from age one to 18 reported that nearly 62 percent of their diet was highly processed. That number dipped to 53 percent among adults over age 19. Ultra-processed foods are common and can take a variety of forms, from pre-packaged snacks, frozen foods and bottled soda drinks. But Thursday's findings are likely to add fuel to a campaign under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr to reform the US diet, as part of his 'Make America Healthy Again' campaign (MAHA). Just one day before the latest CDC numbers were published, Kennedy used his social media account to once again blame high-calorie, processed foods for a variety of ailments. 'Genes don't cause epidemics. They may provide a vulnerability, but you need an environmental toxin — and we know what it is. It's sugar and ultra-processed foods,' Kennedy wrote on the platform X on Wednesday. Studies have repeatedly shown links between highly processed foods and detrimental health conditions like obesity, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Kennedy, however, has been criticised for seeking 'environmental toxins' to explain conditions like autism, which researchers largely believe to result from a variety of factors, including genetic ones. Thursday's survey results are part of a long-running study tracking what American adults and children eat and drink on a daily basis through interviews, body measurements and laboratory testing. Known as the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the study has its limitations: Interviews rely on self-reported food consumption, for instance. But its origins stretch back to the 1960s, and since 1999, the study has continued without interruption, according to the CDC. About 5,000 people take part each year. In the latest edition of the survey, researchers found that income played a significant role in how much ultra-processed foods were consumed per household. High-income groups corresponded with lower mean percentages of highly processed foods consumed. This was particularly pronounced among adults. For those whose salaries were equivalent to 3.5 times the federal poverty level or more, a mean of 50.4 percent of their diet was comprised of processed foods. That number rose to 54.7 percent for those whose incomes were slightly above, at or below the federal poverty level. The survey also identified the primary culinary culprits behind Americans' consumption of highly processed foods. Sandwiches, including burgers, were the highest source of ultra-processed foods, comprising 7.6 percent of the calories consumed by youth and 8.6 percent for adults. Sweet bakery foods were the next highest category, at 6.3 percent for minors and 5.2 percent for adults. Sweetened beverages and savoury snacks were also prominent sources of calories. But the study did contain some positive news, showing that the mean consumption of ultra-processed foods had decreased. In the survey period from 2013 to 2014, adults consumed a mean of 55.8 percent of their calories from highly processed items. But by the current period, that number slid to 53 percent.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump to sign order requiring universities to disclose admissions data
United States President Donald Trump is preparing to sign an order that would require universities to disclose to the federal government data about their student admissions. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the news in a post on the social media platform X, reposting an article from the right-wing publication The Daily Caller. Trump has long sought to exert greater control over the country's higher education system, which he and other prominent Republicans consider ideologically skewed. At the same time, Trump has also sought to dismantle initiatives to promote diversity, equity and inclusion — goals known collectively by the acronym DEI — on the basis that such efforts are inherently discriminatory. Rolling back DEI This was such a priority for Trump that, on January 20, during the first day of his second term, he signed an executive order titled 'Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing'. That order repealed a previous directive, issued under President Joe Biden, to advance 'racial equity' and better support 'underserved communities'. It also called diversity initiatives 'illegal and immoral' and ordered the termination of any such programmes run by the federal government. 'Federal employment practices, including Federal employee performance reviews, shall reward individual initiative, skills, performance, and hard work and shall not under any circumstances consider DEI,' the order explained. Trump has sought to extend his campaign against DEI beyond the auspices of the federal government, including to private enterprises. In the immediate aftermath of Trump's inauguration, major US companies like the retailer Target and the carmaker Ford have reframed or dialled back their DEI programming, in an apparent response to the president's platform. But critics have questioned whether Trump may be exceeding his constitutionally mandated powers. Some have argued that an embrace of diversity practices falls well within a private enterprise's free speech rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution. They also point out that, without proactively supporting diversity in companies and universities, those institutions are likely to maintain imbalances in race, gender and ability that do not reflect the wider public. That, in turn, keeps certain groups out of positions of power, perpetuating a history of segregation and bias in the US. Peeling back affirmative action But Trump and his allies have long argued that diversity-promoting practices use race, gender and other factors to discriminate against qualified candidates who may belong to over-represented groups. In a subsequent executive order on January 21, Trump pledged to restore 'merit-based opportunity' in the US. 'Hardworking Americans who deserve a shot at the American Dream should not be stigmatized, demeaned, or shut out of opportunities because of their race or sex,' the executive order said. Under Trump, the Department of Education has taken steps to roll back diversity initiatives and other 'divisive ideology' in schools, including by freezing federal funds to institutions that do not comply. That has put it at loggerheads with academic freedom advocates, who fear the independence of US schools is being trampled in favour of advancing a political agenda. Opponents of diversity initiatives, however, have won significant victories, most recently in 2023. That year, the US Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action — the practice of considering race and other diversity factors in school admissions — violated the US Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, which asserts the right to equal protection under the law. That decision, delivered by the court's conservative supermajority, overturned decades of precedent and barred schools from using race as a factor for choosing students. Some conservative groups, however, have continued to question whether there is a bias in school admissions against white, male and Asian students. Trump versus the Ivy League The US president has been among the sceptics clamouring for more information about university admissions and hiring practices, and he has made that demand a pillar in his fights with various top schools. Trump has yanked billions in federal contracts, grants and other funds from schools, including Columbia University in New York, Harvard University in Massachusetts and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), which reported this week a pause on $584m in grants. To restore those suspended funds, Trump has called on university leaders to agree to his demands, including oversight over admissions. Columbia was the first major campus to do so. As part of its deal with the Trump administration, Columbia agreed to review its admissions practices and establish an advisory group to 'analyze recent trends in enrollment'. The advisory group will then 'report to the President', according to the deal. The Trump administration has also launched federal investigations into universities, alleging violations of civil rights law. Some universities have submitted to Trump's demands in part to bring those probes to a close. On July 30, for instance, another Ivy League school, Brown University in Rhode Island, announced it had struck a deal in exchange for the continuation of its federal funding and a 'permanent closure' to the 'open reviews and investigations' the Trump administration had launched. As part of the deal, however, Brown agreed to spend $50m on workforce development programmes and maintain 'merit-based admissions policies'. 'No proxy for racial admission will be tolerated,' the deal reads. 'Brown may not use personal statements, diversity narratives, or any applicant reference to racial identity as a means to introduce or justify discrimination.' Still, some schools have resisted Trump's demands, most notably Harvard, the nation's oldest university. In April, Harvard President Alan Garber rejected an agreement proposed by the Trump administration, which would have required a 'comprehensive audit' of the school's hiring and admissions practices. That data would have then been shared with the federal government. 'No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,' Garber wrote at the time.
