February 2, 2026
Pharmaceutical portfolios tend to evolve gradually year to year, but longer time horizons reveal meaningful structural change. Comparing 2019 and 2024 revenue composition across several large-cap biopharma companies shows how M&A, lifecycle dynamics, and new product launches reshaped therapeutic concentration.
This analysis examines portfolio mix shifts at Johnson & Johnson, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk, using company-reported pharmaceutical revenue. Percentages reflect each therapeutic area's share of that revenue in each year.
Johnson and Johnson: Oncology Expansion Alongside Immunology Stability
Johnson & Johnson maintained a relatively stable immunology contribution across the period: 33.1% of pharmaceutical revenue in 2019 and 31.3% in 2024. Immunology sales rose from $13.950 billion to $17.828 billion. That broad stability masks changing brand performance: in 2024, Stelara and Remicade faced biosimilar competition while Tremfya grew. Source 1. Source 2.
The most notable shift was in oncology. Oncology increased from 25.3% of pharmaceutical revenue in 2019 to 36.5% in 2024, with sales rising from $10.692 billion to $20.781 billion. Darzalex, Erleada and Carvykti were among the contributors to oncology growth in 2024. Source 1. Source 2.
Neuroscience declined as a share of segment sales, from 15.0% in 2019 to 12.5% in 2024, even though reported sales increased from $6.328 billion to $7.115 billion. J&J completed its acquisition of Intra-Cellular Therapies on April 2, 2025. The addition of Caplyta therefore falls outside this comparison and cannot explain the 2024 revenue mix. Source 1. Source 2. Source 3.
Roche: Reduced Concentration Through Neurology Growth
In 2019, combining Roche’s reported oncology and haemophilia A categories gives CHF 28.951 billion, or 59.7% of pharmaceutical sales. In 2024, oncology/haematology contributed CHF 23.744 billion, or 51.4%. The decline in share reflects both a lower reported-franc numerator and growth elsewhere; it cannot be attributed solely to faster growth in other areas. These are reported-currency figures, not a constant-exchange-rate comparison. Source 1. Source 2.
Neurology emerged as a significant source of diversification. Its share rose from 9.0% in 2019, when Roche called the category neuroscience, to 20.1% in 2024. Reported sales increased from CHF 4.358 billion to CHF 9.267 billion. Roche identified Ocrevus, Evrysdi and Elevidys as drivers of neurology growth in 2024. Source 1. Source 2.
Oncology/haematology remained Roche’s largest category in 2024. Growth from medicines including Phesgo, Hemlibra and Polivy coexisted with biosimilar pressure on older brands. The comparison groups haemophilia A with oncology in 2019 to approximate the later combined category; reporting changes mean it should not be read as a constant-product portfolio. Source 1. Source 2.
AstraZeneca: Structural Reweighting Toward Oncology and Rare Disease
AstraZeneca’s portfolio changed substantially over the period. In 2019, respiratory and cardiovascular, renal and metabolism (CVRM) together represented 52.2% of Product Sales. Oncology accounted for 36.8%. These shares use $23.565 billion of Product Sales, rather than the $24.384 billion Total Revenue figure that also included Collaboration Revenue. Source.
By 2024, oncology represented 39.8% of Product Sales, or $20.275 billion out of $50.938 billion. Rare disease contributed $8.668 billion, or 17.0%. AstraZeneca completed its acquisition of Alexion on July 21, 2021, bringing rare disease into the group between the two comparison years. Source 1. Source 2.
This shift illustrates AstraZeneca’s greater weight in oncology and rare disease, while CVRM and respiratory/immunology remained substantial businesses. It reflects a changed company boundary as well as product growth: the 2019 group did not include Alexion. Product-sales shares also exclude revenue recorded through alliances, which matters when comparing partnered medicines. Source 1. Source 2.
Novo Nordisk: Sustained Focus on Metabolic Disease
Novo Nordisk remained focused on metabolic disease, but the balance between diabetes and obesity changed markedly. Diabetes care accounted for 79.6% of net sales in 2019 and 71.1% in 2024. Diabetes sales increased from DKK 97.161 billion to DKK 206.618 billion; a lower share did not mean lower sales. Source 1. Source 2.
Obesity care expanded from DKK 5.679 billion, or 4.7% of net sales, in 2019 to DKK 65.146 billion, or 22.4%, in 2024. The 2019 obesity category consisted of Saxenda; by 2024 it included Wegovy and Saxenda. The remaining 2024 rare-disease business contributed 6.4% of net sales. Source 1. Source 2.
The data show continued therapeutic focus with a meaningful shift within it. For the category comparison, 2019 haemophilia is presented alongside 2024 rare blood disorders, while the other Biopharm/rare-disease categories are grouped separately. Those reporting labels are not identical; the diabetes and obesity shares can be calculated directly without that regrouping. Source 1. Source 2.
How Leading Products Changed: 2013–2023
The product comparison covers AbbVie, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk and Lilly. Its 2013 and 2023 endpoints differ from the four-company portfolio analysis above. Values below are company-reported annual sales in millions: USD for the four US reporters and DKK for Novo Nordisk. They are each company's three largest reported product lines in that year, not a current company ranking. Regional rights and combined franchises are identified where relevant.
AbbVie — 2013: Humira $10,659m; AndroGel $1,035m; Kaletra $962m. 2023: Humira $14,404m; Skyrizi $7,763m; Rinvoq $3,969m. Humira remained prominent across both endpoints, but AbbVie reported a 32.2% sales decline in 2023 as biosimilar competition increased. The comparison shows replacement growth within immunology, alongside the earlier endocrine and antiviral products. Source 1. Source 2.
Merck — 2013: Januvia $4,004m; Zetia $2,658m; Remicade $2,271m. 2023: Keytruda $25,011m; Gardasil/Gardasil 9 $8,886m; Januvia/Janumet $3,366m. The 2023 diabetes figure combines two brands and must not be labeled Januvia alone; the vaccine figure also combines Gardasil and Gardasil 9. The 2013 Januvia figure excludes Janumet ($1,829m); on the combined 2023 basis, 2013 Januvia/Janumet was $5,833m. Merck’s Remicade sales reflect its own commercial rights, rather than all worldwide Remicade sales. Source 1. Source 2.
Johnson & Johnson — 2013: Remicade $6,673m; Zytiga $1,698m; Prezista $1,673m. 2023: Stelara $10,858m; Darzalex $9,744m; the combined Invega Sustenna/Xeplion/Invega Trinza/Trevicta line $4,115m. The Invega figure is a reported franchise total, not Sustenna alone. Remicade appears for both J&J and Merck because each company reports its own sales under their commercial arrangements. Source 1. Source 2.
Novo Nordisk — 2013: NovoRapid/NovoLog DKK 16,848m; Victoza DKK 11,633m; Levemir DKK 11,546m. 2023: Ozempic DKK 95,718m; Wegovy DKK 31,343m; Rybelsus DKK 18,750m. Using reported Danish kroner avoids introducing an unexplained dollar conversion. The leading product mix changed from insulin and liraglutide brands to three semaglutide brands, while remaining centered on diabetes and obesity. Source 1. Source 2.
Lilly — 2013: Cymbalta $5,084.4m; Alimta $2,703.0m; Humalog $2,611.2m. 2023: Trulicity $7,132.6m; Mounjaro $5,163.1m; Verzenio $3,863.4m. These endpoints show a change in leading brands across neuroscience, oncology and diabetes; they do not imply that every older medicine ceased contributing revenue. Source 1. Source 2.
Downstream Effects of Portfolio Churn
Sales teams: a move into a different therapeutic area can require new clinical knowledge and physician relationships. The practical question is which capabilities can transfer and which need to be built. A change in the leading product list alone does not prove that an entire sales organization was rebuilt.
Brand awareness: new medicines need recognition among their intended patients and clinicians, but existing company relationships and therapeutic expertise may carry over. It is too broad to assume that brand awareness must always be rebuilt from scratch.
R&D and M&A: the sales comparison provides context for assessing pipeline exposure and acquisition priorities. Transaction timing matters: Alexion belongs within AstraZeneca’s 2019–2024 comparison, whereas Intra-Cellular falls after J&J’s 2024 endpoint. Those facts establish the scope of the comparison without proving why either acquisition was chosen. Source 1. Source 2.
Novartis: A Case Study in Strategic Focus
Novartis’s 2023 strategy identified four core therapeutic areas: cardiovascular, renal and metabolic; immunology; neuroscience; and oncology. This is an example of an explicitly stated investment focus, separate from the companies and periods in the sales comparisons. It does not establish that centralizing decisions guarantees portfolio success. Source.
What the Portfolio Shifts Signal
Taken together, these portfolio changes show several routes to a different revenue mix: growth of newer medicines, pressure on established brands, acquisitions, and changes in reporting scope. Oncology gained share at J&J and AstraZeneca, while its combined share with haematology declined at Roche. There is no single industry-wide direction established by this four-company sample.
For commercial and competitive-intelligence teams, the useful next step is to connect these sales shifts with specific products, indications and transaction dates. A changing revenue share can identify where to investigate sales-force needs, launch priorities and partnering opportunities; it does not by itself establish the cause of a company’s strategy or the success of an acquisition.
