.png)
SummaryIn Germany, using drug data in your own software usually means one of two things: buying a raw-data licence and running your own update pipeline, or consuming a maintained API. The licence looks cheaper until you count the maintenance. This guide is for pharma software vendors, health-app developers and data teams deciding between the two, and it clears up the identifier maze (PZN, GTIN, NTIN, PPN) and the caching rights that decide the real cost. It is written for professionals, not patients.
A raw-data licence grants the right to use licensed drug data, the article master, prices and status, inside your own systems. You need it when you host and process the data yourself rather than querying a live service. The data originators are IFA GmbH, which assigns the PZN and maintains the authoritative article master, and ABDATA (Avoxa), which enriches it. The licence gives you the data; it does not give you the pipeline that keeps it current.
The IFA article master carries the identification and logistics layer: PZN, prescription status, distribution channel and price structure, across 260 evaluable fields. The ABDA database adds the clinical and pharmacological layer: interactions, risk checks and pharmacology. Most software needs both, which is why teams either license each source and merge them, or consume a platform that has already merged them. Our guide to the ABDA database describes the enriched layer in detail.
The decision is a classic build-versus-buy. A raw licence is cheaper as a line item but shifts the operating burden to you; a maintained API costs more per period but removes the pipeline.
| Criterion | Raw-data licence (self-run) | Maintained API / platform |
|---|---|---|
| Data scope | the licensed source | 25+ sources consolidated |
| Maintenance / update pipeline | you build and run it | included |
| Caching / redistribution rights | defined by the licence | defined, with API access |
| Update cadence | you re-import each cycle | always current |
| Cost model | licence + engineering + upkeep | subscription incl. maintenance |
| Integration effort | higher (ETL, mapping) | lower (REST, JSON) |
| International data | usually German only | 50+ countries available |
Usually yes, within limits set by the licence, but caching is only safe when it respects the update cadence. Because the article master changes daily and prices change twice a month, cached data goes stale quickly, and redistribution to third parties is typically restricted. Any serialisation-relevant use also touches the Falsified Medicines Directive framework operated in Germany by securPharm. The practical rule: cache for performance, refresh on the source cadence, and never treat a cache as a substitute for a licence.
Identifier confusion is the most common integration mistake. Four codes appear on German pharmaceutical packaging, and they are not interchangeable.
| Identifier | What it is | Issued or governed by | Primary use |
|---|---|---|---|
| PZN | 8-digit German article number | IFA GmbH | German identification, ordering, billing |
| GTIN | global trade item number | GS1 | international logistics and retail |
| NTIN | National Trade Item Number, derived from the PZN | based on the PZN | serialisation under the FMD |
| PPN | Pharmacy Product Number | IFA GmbH | serialisation and packaging identification |
The article master and shortage data update daily; German list prices update twice a month, on the 1st and the 15th. For a self-run licence that means a scheduled ingest and validation job that must not fail silently, because a stale price or a missed status change becomes a billing or compliance error. A maintained API moves that operational risk to the provider.
Teams often ask for a per-month API price as if it were the whole cost. For a raw licence the honest figure is the licence plus the engineering to build the pipeline plus the ongoing upkeep to keep it correct. For a maintained API the subscription already includes that upkeep. Comparing a licence line item against a subscription line item, without the maintenance, is the misframe that leads to underestimating the true total cost of ownership. The consolidated data behind either path is described in our drug data API guide.
Pharma software vendors embedding data as a backend usually prefer a maintained API, so the data is not their maintenance problem. Health-app developers who need fast PZN look-ups favour REST and JSON over an ETL project. BI and data-analyst teams that model over the full dataset may license raw data if they already run a data platform, but should price the pipeline honestly. For the wider database landscape, see our comparison of German drug databases.
A raw-data licence is not cheaper than a maintained API; it is a different cost structure that moves the update pipeline onto your team. If your organisation already operates a data platform and needs the raw data, a licence can be right. If you want current data without owning the pipeline, a maintained API is usually the better economics. pharmazie.com is the consolidated pharmaceutical data platform by DACON Datenbank Consulting GmbH that bundles 25+ specialist databases into a single search, exclusively for healthcare professionals, and delivers the same data through a REST API and data licensing. The clearest way to compare for your stack is a short technical demo.
Further reading: The ABDA database · Drug data API · German drug databases compared
