Syngenta AG

World Health Organization prequalifies Syngenta’s innovative insecticide Sovrenta ® BASEL, Switzerland--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Malaria is one of the world’s most deadly diseases, and it is becoming more pervasive – despite decades of effort and some successes on the path to eradicating it. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), malaria infected 263 million people and killed nearly 600,000 people in 2023 – 75% of whom were children under the age of 5. Of those afflicted, 94% are in Africa – where malaria crushes communities and can cripple economies. Syngenta launches a next-gen insecticide that takes on the toughest, treatment-resistant mosquitoes. With WHO prequalification, this breakthrough could help save thousands of lives. A global health game changer #WorldMalariaDay #InnovationAgainstMalaria Spread by parasites in infected mosquitoes that are highly adept at evolving, malaria’s rise reflects the reality of insecticide resistance and the difficulties developing new solutions. The effective control of mosquitoes remains a key strategy for reducing disease transmission. Syngenta, a global leader in agricultural innovation, today announced that its next-generation insecticide Sovrenta® has received pre-qualification by WHO, paving the way for its use in malaria-afflicted countries. For decades, Syngenta has been at the forefront of the fight against malaria, reflecting its commitment to researching new solutions through in-house R&D efforts and working alongside key partners across sub-Saharan Africa; its products such as Actellic® already help avert as many as 100 million cases of malaria in more than 30 countries. Sovrenta® works by targeting a mosquito’s nervous system, blocking signals that enable the insect’s muscles to relax. The effect paralyzes the mosquito, so that it eventually dies. The ability of Sovrenta® to provide long-lasting, effective control means just one application is required each season, reducing the cost for malaria prevention programs. Sovrenta® is based on Syngenta’s cutting-edge PLINAZOLIN® technology that features a new mode of action, ensuring effective control of mosquitoes even where the insect’s populations are increasingly resistant to older insecticides. When used in rotation with other products, Sovrenta® can further ensure that important vector control solutions remain effective for longer. Andy Bywater, Global Head of Marketing for Vector Control at Syngenta Crop Protection, said: “This marks an important milestone in Syngenta’s quest to bring its most advanced innovations to malaria-endemic countries, and to advancing the health and safety of the millions still at risk.” Bywater said Sovrenta® is a crucial addition to Syngenta’s vector control portfolio that allows for enhanced resistance-management strategies. That is key in regions where mosquitoes are resistant to older insecticides based on pyrethroids – the most common forms of treatment. “Sovrenta® is the only insecticide recognized to provide year-long protection and gives malaria control programs a powerful tool to safeguard communities,” Bywater said. “We are dedicated to collaborating with partners to ensure Sovrenta® is deployed sustainably and effectively.” The WHO’s Vector Control Product Pre-Qualification (VCPP) is a rigorous process that ensures the safety, efficacy, and quality of vector-borne disease control products. Its list of prequalified vector control products is used by international procurement agencies and by countries to guide bulk purchasing of these products for distribution in resource-limited countries. Web Resources Media release image pack Syngenta Media Library About Syngenta Syngenta is a global leader in agricultural innovation with a presence in more than 90 countries. Syngenta is focused on developing technologies and farming practices that empower farmers, so they can make the transformation required to feed the world’s population while preserving our planet. Its bold scientific discoveries deliver better benefits for farmers and society on a bigger scale than ever before. Guided by its Sustainability Priorities, Syngenta is developing new technologies and solutions that support farmers to grow healthier plants in healthier soil with a higher yield. Syngenta Crop Protection is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland; Syngenta Seeds is headquartered in the United States. Read our stories and follow us on LinkedIn, Instagram & X. Syngenta Vector Control plays a leading role in the prevention of vector-borne disease transmission through its portfolio of mosquito control products. Visit our website and follow us on LinkedIn & X. Data protection is important to us. You are receiving this publication on the legal basis of Article 6 para 1 lit. f GDPR (“legitimate interest”). However, if you do not wish to receive further information about Syngenta, just send us a brief informal message and we will no longer process your details for this purpose. You can also find further details in our privacy statement. Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements This document may contain forward-looking statements, which can be identified by terminology such as ‘expect’, ‘would’, ‘will’, ‘potential’, ‘plans’, ‘prospects’, ‘estimated’, ‘aiming’, ‘on track’ and similar expressions. Such statements may be subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause the actual results to differ materially from these statements. For Syngenta, such risks and uncertainties include risks relating to legal proceedings, regulatory approvals, new product development, increasing competition, customer credit risk, general economic and market conditions, compliance and remediation, intellectual property rights, implementation of organizational changes, impairment of intangible assets, consumer perceptions of genetically modified crops and organisms or crop protection chemicals, climatic variations, fluctuations in exchange rates and/or commodity prices, single source supply arrangements, political uncertainty, natural disasters, and breaches of data security or other disruptions of information technology. Syngenta assumes no obligation to update forward-looking statements to reflect actual results, changed assumptions or other factors. ©2025 Syngenta. Rosentalstrasse 67, 4058 Basel, Switzerland.

☝ 点击上方 一键预约 ☝   最新最热的医药健康新闻政策 外资医药企业在中国的地位衰落，从华领医药的操作中就能感受出来。 11月22日，久不发声的华领医药抛出一份通知：从明年1月1号起，从拜耳手里拿回华堂宁在中国市场的商业化推广权。 这份文件之所以说是“通知”，是因为没管拜耳答应不答应，就像最后通牒一样发出来了。华领医药还提到：权益拿回来后可能还会寻找新的合作伙伴，换人来推动华堂宁的商业化。 ▌根本没有考虑拜耳的感受。 华领敢这么“豪横”，主要是因为华堂宁这两年的销售相当可以，另外，拜耳也有苦衷。 华堂宁是华领目前唯一的上市药品。2020年8月，华领可能对这款全球独一份的GK靶点降糖药心里也没底，所以拉来拜耳负责中国市场独家商业化推广。 拜耳在口服降糖药领域算不上全球头部。国际上，糖尿病治疗以胰岛素为主流，口服降糖药的大佬是默沙东、赛诺菲、礼来等。 但是，拜耳有一款独门暗器级的降糖药，在中国卖的非常好，那就阿卡波糖。 阿卡波糖为何创造销售神话，我们之前在《拜耳降糖药自杀式降价：狂赚百亿，收割中国患者25年》中提到过。拜耳的确有一套，愣是把一个全球排不上座次的降糖药卖到中国降糖药第一名。 （2020年未大规模集采时，中国口服降糖药排名） 2020年初拜耳决定大幅降价加入中国药品集采，阿卡波糖眼看地位就要不稳。拜耳正想扶一个新的降糖药，正好华领的华堂宁出现了。 双方一起畅想好了宏大的愿景：拜耳给出的总里程碑费用高达41.8亿元；华领给出的回报是利润平分，钱赚多了再谈分成比例。 华堂宁2022年10月获批，拜耳500多名销售人员立刻启动了推广，告诉华领只要保证供上货，在家数钱就行了。事实也的确如此，过去2年时间里，华堂宁的销售的确快速攀升。也就难怪有评论认为，华领这时候拿回华堂宁的推广权， ▌“属于卸磨杀驴” （摘自华领医药近两年财报） 但是，华领有话说。 拜耳这一年多来内部动荡，早就不是秘密。2018年拜耳630亿美元硬吃下农业六巨头之一的孟山都之后，就陷入了无尽的诉讼之中，孟山都的农药被指致癌，在全球面临16.5万件的诉讼，这些官司都要拜耳来了结，直接拖跨了拜耳集团原本还可以的化工和制药板块。 说句题外话：六巨头之一的先正达现归中化集团。每次先正达传闻要IPO，A股都要抖三抖。 去年6月拜耳新任CEO上位之后，快速启动了“调整”，其实就是裁员。短短半年间拜耳裁员四轮，大刀主要砍向中层管理层。 拜耳中国区是否被波及？此前一直没有明确的信息传出。只有一些零星的小道消息，如消费保健品事业部、面向基层市场的火星项目组等均有规模不小的裁员。 11月22日，根据华领医药电话交流会称：拜耳中国区内分泌团队实际在2023年就已经解散，华堂宁内部转手给了心血管团队负责。 这可能是华领下决心收回华堂宁的直接原因。 拜耳前期用40多亿的巨额里程碑付款吊住华领的胃口。即使销售达不到预期，拜耳方面也不会有太大损失。但对华领来说，等于脖子被人卡住，毕竟拜耳拿的是中国市场独家推广权， ▌它不推广，你能如何？ 类似的案例并不少见。2021年初，阿斯利康拿到了君实生物PD-1在中国的部分推广权。只一年不到，君实就看出阿斯利康并不给力，果断切断联系，拿回PD-1的权益。 华领医药规模不大，主要就华堂宁这一个品种。好在产品还算给力，而且今年华堂宁进了医保，上半年销售量达到去年全年的4倍。假以时日，华领医药有希望像艾力斯一样，安安稳稳挣自己一亩三分地的钱。 糖尿病领域最近并不太平。在GLP-1类药物冲击势头下，口服降糖药整体趋于守势。前几日刚传出默沙东中国调整糖尿病事业线的消息。华领要想再找个合作伙伴，或许没那么容易。 大不了就自己干吧！ (来源:拇指药略  作者:西北哽） 药闻康策 新媒体矩阵微信公众号 点击下方  一键关注 【免责声明】 1.“药闻康策”部分文章信息来源于网络转载是出于传递更多信息之目的，并不意味着赞同其观点或证实其内容的真实性。如对内容有疑议，请及时与我司联系。2.“药闻康策”致力于提供合理、准确、完整的资讯信息，但不保证信息的合理性、准确性和完整性，且不对因信息的不合理、不准确或遗漏导致的任何损失或损害承担责任。3.“药闻康策”所有信息仅供参考，不做任何商业交易或医疗服务的根据，如自行使用“药闻康策”内容发生偏差，我司不承担任何责任，包括但不限于法律责任，赔偿责任。 欢迎转发分享、点赞、点在看

For AI-focused startups seeking out pharma deals, they have to go through people like Greg Meyers, the chief digital and technology officer at Bristol Myers Squibb. Endpoints News recently talked with Meyers about his views on artificial intelligence, including where he’s convinced the technology has value and where it’s mostly hype. At Bristol Myers, he plays a key role in determining what is and isn’t worth the $100 billion pharma company’s time and effort. This interview has been substantially edited for length and clarity. Andrew Dunn : You worked up the ranks at J&J, Novartis and Biogen, and then left the drug industry for Motorola and Syngenta. Why’d you leave the industry and what lessons did you learn? Greg Meyers: I didn’t ever want to be painted as the pharma guy. I wanted to make sure I had a full perspective as a technologist. There’s a lot of constraints on technology in biopharma in terms of the regulations we face. When you go into places where the risks are lower, you start to question if you take another month to do this, do you actually de-risk it? Some of my assumptions — the longer it takes, the safer something is — actually turn out not to be true. In many cases, the faster you move, the safer it is because you have the ability to change course faster. Coming back to life sciences, I’m always measuring up whether we’re moving fast enough, being too conservative or too bureaucratic. Dunn: You hear a lot of pitches from startups using AI in drug discovery. What do you see as the biggest gaps between the AI bio field and what Bristol Myers wants? Meyers : There’s too much media attention on lead identification, probably because it sells headlines: Some big AI lab created a protein-folding tool and now we won’t need scientists anymore. The truth is the vast majority of leads that can be hit will fail. We actually just put a molecule into Phase 1 for sickle cell disease. We’ve built a CELMoD , which is basically a molecule that can degrade proteins. If you can degrade the protein that inhibits the production of fetal hemoglobin, you can ameliorate the symptoms of sickle cell disease. What does that have to do with AI? When you develop a CELMoD, you’ve got an engineering problem. We made subtle changes to the molecule, nothing that would change its functionality, but that allow you to stabilize the molecule so that it could do its job. We’re seeing a ton of value; 100% of our small-molecule programs and 50% of our large molecules won’t make their way to the wet lab until a predictive model suggests that experiment will work. We’re building a lot of this from scratch because the software that you need is inextricably linked to the data you have, and the data is unique. It’s got its own level of dirtiness and cleansing you need to do, so we find using these open-source models and tools really gets us to where we need to go. Dunn: Chai launched earlier this month as the latest AI startup advancing a protein structure model. Is this healthy competition? Or is there a risk of redundancy, given all the different tasks inside the R&D process? From what you’re saying, it sounds like the field could have more impact focusing on optimization. Do we really need another protein language model? Meyers: This competition is great. It’s pretty normal, too. If you rewind the clock to maybe 1998, there were about 12 different search engines. You didn’t know whether Lycos or Yahoo or Google were going to win. The market clears out who really has a substantive product, and who has a solution looking for a problem. It’s probably going to be the same here. I’ll take AlphaFold2 as an example. The new one’s not open-sourced — funny how that works — but AlphaFold2 is something we use almost daily. But we don’t use it the way the media would think you would, to predict proteins. It doesn’t really do that. It does a good job of taking well-characterized proteins, already bound by X-ray crystallography behind the scenes, and allows you to look at adjacencies, like subtle changes, to them. Dunn: A lot of these startups are more about a single model or product than building an end-to-end biopharma company. What does that say about today’s startup landscape? Meyers: There’s a lot of venture money flowing into AI. If we’re honest, there are probably companies that don’t have great product-market fit or great ideas, but because the word GenAI is on the pitch deck, they’re going to get money. In a place like Bristol Myers Squibb, we don’t want to spend time stitching together 100 different point solutions that all think they’re the one-stop shops. You end up having a mall of one-stop shops. You have to engineer these things in a cohesive way if you want to transform your workflow. I don’t think that’s the fault of any startups; that’s just the nature of the lack of maturity of where things are. Dunn: For startups seeking partnerships, what do they need to understand? Meyers: As a startup, when you look at life sciences, there is a systematic oversimplifying in the way we actually operate. I’ll go back to the example of obsessing over lead identification, when in fact being able to predict something like absorption or lipophilicity, these are the things that achieve breakthroughs. But when you look at it from the outside, it looks like what we really need is a scientist in a box. The technology is not in that credible place now. It’s so very complicated. Maybe 5% of cellular interactions have actually been modeled. The other 95% of biology is largely a black box. Dunn: It feels like there’s some conflict with the VC world seeking out huge visions of foundation models and generalizability. Then I’m hearing you say the needs of today’s big pharmas are specific, applied models. Is that going to be a natural tension for the field? Meyers: I think you’re onto something. The venture system probably values simple, easy-to-understand business models. A lot of what exists today tends to be more the ingredients that you need that might be able to achieve a really valuable breakthrough. But that’s not a simple, easy-to-explain business model. Dunn: Given your career in IT, how do you decide when it makes sense to roll out AI-powered technologies, or really any new technology, to thousands of workers at a large company? Meyers: A demo is worth 1,000 slides. Most big companies probably start off with 1,000 slides, and then there’s this huge process to get everyone aligned on whether we should or shouldn’t attempt something. Once you decide to attempt it, it becomes very high-stakes for people. What should be a proof of concept becomes a project where people’s reputations are at stake on it being successful. I like to do things very quietly and small. We’re going to fail nine out of 10 times. The only way you’re going to know what AI can do is getting your hands dirty. You need to make sure there’s no shame or blame or embarrassment in those failures. When you actually have something to show people, you’re either going to get, “This is the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard,” or, “Oh my God, that’s amazing.” You don’t need to write even one slide, because all the organizational energy gets channeled into moving that thing forward. Dunn: You’ve rolled out an internal version of ChatGPT. I know everyone loves to talk about humans in the loop, and that AI won’t replace people. But do you see any jobs or tasks, especially things like medical writing, adverse-event reporting, regulatory submission preparations, at the highest risk of being replaced? Meyers: My base case is not jobs being replaced. I do think tasks will change, but not really any differently than in the past. Adverse events, that’s something we’ve done. We have AI now reading all of our events, and they’re categorizing them. You get a ton of noise in pharmacovigilance. How do you get your best pharmacovigilance people the cases they really need to focus on? This work might have taken days to troll through what you’re getting, but now being able to have them automatically prioritized, it doesn’t require fewer people. It just makes better use of their time. That’s the case for most of these things.