Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

Medicis Pharmaceutical, the maker of Dysport a drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to smooth skin furrows between the eyebrows, recently introduced a marketing campaign that offers people who use Dysport drug discounts and a patient satisfaction rebate guarantee. The campaign, which runs through April 30, was intentionally designed to elevate Dysport’s image and cannibalize market share in the anti wrinkle market from Allergan the maker of Botox and the market leader.

The Dysport promotion, running on the product’s Web site and in a few glossy magazines like Us Weekly, offers a $75 rebate check on an initial Dysport treatment for wrinkles between the eyebrows, a procedure that can cost consumers $300 to $500. Satisfied customers can receive a $75 rebate on a follow-up Dysport treatment, while dissatisfied customers who want to switch can receive a $75 rebate on a Botox treatment.

While this is an unprecedented and novel campaign, it demonstrates the lengths that Medicis is willing to go through to garner market share from Botox which enjoyed a monopoly on injectable toxins in the US until the introduction of Dysport last year. Last year, worldwide sales of Botox were roughly $1.3 billion. Industry analysts estimate that Medicis may be able to capture a 20 to 25 percent share of the US market.  

While the marketing campaign may seem a bit odd and brash, Medicis isn’t the first pharmaceutical company to use rebates and drug discounts to inspire patient brand loyalty. For example, Sepracor offers a seven-day free trial of its popular sleeping pill Lunesta. Merck is running a print ad with a voucher for a free 30-day supply of its Januvia tablets for Type 2 diabetes. Another Merck ad carries a $20 coupon for the allergy and asthma drug Singulair. However, the use of product rebates and drug discounts is mostly used to market so-called vanity medicine drugs (like Latisse, Botox and Dysport) which have been approved by FDA for clinical use but are not covered by medical insurance. Patients who use these drugs are paying out of pocket and, in essence, are buying from physicians. Many worry that this practice may induce doctors and patients to make medical decisions based on money not safety or efficacy. 

In the case of Botox and Dysport neither product is entirely risk free. For those of you who may not know, both are purified forms of botulinum toxin — a toxin produced by Clostridium botulinum that interferes with nerve transmission and involuntary muscle contractions. The injections cause temporary cosmetic problems like droopy eyelids or uneven eyebrows. And these drugs now carry federally mandated “black box” warnings on their labels stating that botulinum toxins have been associated with rare but potentially life-threatening health problems.

Although promotional programs like the one being offered by Medicis may be inappropriate or seemingly reckless, it—like those of Sepracor and Merck—are permissible under current direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising regulations. Isn’t it time to reevaluate regulations that allow powerful, potentially-dangerous prescription drugs to be treated as consumer goods where price, not medical need, safety or efficacy, promotes their acceptance and use?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Looking!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I was chatting with a fellow medical writing colleague the other day and the topic of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising came up. I suggested that DTC advertising is largely ineffectual but my colleague suggested otherwise. To prove his point, he sent me a fascinating article entitled “Direct-to-Consumer Advertising: An Attitude Survey of Psychiatric Physicians (Bhanji et al. Primary Psychiatry. 2008; 15(11):67-71). The conclusion of the paper was somewhat surprising (to me anyway):

......pilot survey of psychiatrists revealed that DTC advertising has the potential to improve awareness of medical conditions and decrease the stigma of mental illness. Surveyed psychiatrists believed that DTC had little significant effect on their personal prescribing practices. However, >80% of respondents reported they had prescribed medications specifically requested by their patients. Most respondents failed to endorse that DTC had a positive effect on the doctor-patient relationship, or on improved patients’ medication compliance.

This suggests that people (at least those suffering from mental illness) listen to and likely learn about their illnesses from DTC ads. Further, it explains why drug makers continue to spend large sums of money on DTC advertising despite diminishing ROI on traditional print and television advertising revenues —it works!  While the effectiveness of DTC advertising was interesting, the real eye opener was the authors’ historical account of the evolution of DTC advertising in the US. 

Although currently a hot topic, DTC advertising in the US has been around for nearly 300 years. In 1708, Nicholas Boone placed the first advertisement for a patent medication

in a Boston newspaper. For the next 230 years, advertisements for patented medications claiming to treat everything from dandruff to infidelity could be found in magazines, newspapers, and traveling medicine shows. In 1938, Congress passed the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which gave the FDA authority over the labeling of pharmaceuticals and the Federal Trade Commission control over their advertising.

No new legislation was introduced until 1962 when the Kefauver-Harris amendments proposed the concept of consumer protectionism when dealing with pharmaceuticals.

Under these amendments, authority for drug promotional advertising review was reassigned to the FDA. The FDA established requirements similar to those in existence today, i.e., specifications of contraindications, effectiveness, side effect profiles, and a cost-benefit discussion. Virtually all of the advertisements were targeted to physicians.

In 1981, the pharmaceutical industry proposed shifting marketing to include the consumer. At issue was the requirement to include extensive clinical information on the product, making it problematic to use television media to reach potential customers. That same year the Commissioner of the FDA, Arthur Hayes, requested the pharmaceutical industry put a voluntary moratorium on DTC advertising to allow the FDA to study their request to reduce the required disclaimers.

In 1985, the FDA concluded that the existing regulations to safeguard the public interest were adequate. This ruling had the effect of postponing the growth of DTC for the next 12 years. However, 1997 marked the beginning of rapid growth in DTC advertising. This change in marketing was attributed to the new FDA guidelines on broadcast DTC marketing. For the first time, drug manufacturers could present the name of the product and the condition it was intended to treat, and not report all of the contraindications.

The financial implications of this change in policy were enormous. In 1985, $17 million was spent on DTC marketing. By 2000, that figure rose to $2.5 billion, and $4.2 billion in 2005. In 2008, the estimated DTC marketing budget will be in the sum of $8 billion. Real spending on DTC advertising increased by 330% from 1996–2005.

As of 2007, only the US and New Zealand permit DTC advertising of prescription medications. In countries outside the US, the pharmaceutical industry has applied pressure to relax regulations regarding DTC marketing with little success. Despite DTC advertising being banned in most non-US countries, there is growing international concern that drug companies are circumventing legislation through the use of internet advertising and “spam” E-mail. Pharmaceutical companies also provide “awareness campaigns” or infomercials with vague references to prescription treatments in order to improve their sales abroad.

As previously mentioned on BioJobBlog, DTC advertising is big business. And, eliminating DTC advertising would likely help to reduce the cost associated with new drug development. This is because most drug makers don’t tell you that marketing and advertising costs are factored into the $1.0 billion that is generally believed to be the price associated with bringing a new drug to market. Who knew?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A post on the Pharmalot blog today reports that spending on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising came bounding back in the third quarter —rising 15 percent to $1.16 billion, according to DTC Perspectives (which cited data from TNS Media Intelligence).

The increased spending marks the first quarterly gain in nearly two years after slumping 6.4 percent earlier this year from January to June. According to the Pharmalot post, “Internet spending increased the most—more than tripling between January and September to $221 million (display ads only). And, more ads were placed in newspapers, which showed a 25 percent gain to $104 million during the same period.

During the first nine months of 2009 the leading advertisers by brand (each of which spent more than $125 million each) were:

1. Lipitor (Pfizer)
2. Abilify (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Otsuka America)
3. Cymbalta (Eli Lilly) and
4. Advair (GlaxoSmithKline)

Could this be a sign that the pharmaceutical industry thinks that the economy is improving? Alternatively, maybe pharma marketers think that people might become increasingly stressed by the economy and drugs like Abilify and Cymbalta (a variety of psychiatric indications) and Lipitor (high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease ands stroke) may be in greater demand. And finally, from a completely cynical perspective, maybe drug makers want to sell as many drugs as possible before healthcare reform and possible price controls kick in?

Hat tip to Ed!!!!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In today’s edition of the incisive EyeonFDA blog, Mark Senak, provides a historical perspective on events leading to the US Food and Drug Administration public hearing on the use of social media and medical promotion that will be held on Thursday and Friday, November 12 and 13, 2009. As Mark points out, registration for the meeting was closed because of an overwhelming response and the number of people who wanted to offer testimony on the topic. Many social media enthusiasts view the public hearing as something of a “game changer” that may influence the future direction of social media in the life sciences industry. But, as Mark, astutely points out, only four pharmaceutical companies and one or two trade organizations will be participating at the hearing. 

The lack of industry participation at the meeting is curious given that 14 companies received warning letters several months ago about their misuse of ad associated with the results obtain by Google search. Further, pharmaceutical companies have consistently and publicly stated that their aversion to social media is contingent upon the lack of FDA’s regulatory guidance for its use. By not actively participating in the public hearings later this week, many pharma companies have chosen to remain silent and will likely allow FDA to craft social media policies that guide the promotional activities of drug makers on its own. This begs the question: why would drug makers allow a federal regulatory agency to unilaterally dictate policy, when the policy will likely affect their bottom lines, i.e. sales and profits? The industry’s refusal to actively participate in these hearings is another example of the cat and mouse game that drug makers like to play with FDA. Put simply, drug makers expect and want FDA to commit (in writing) to certain policies and guidelines and once established, company regulators and lawyers are instructed to find loopholes and work-arounds. I liken the drug industry’s refusal to actively participate in the upcoming public hearings to the now infamous rope-ad-dope strategy Mohammed Ali used to knock out George Foreman in the now infamous Rumble in the Jungle in 1974. This is how wikipedia defines the rope-a-dope: “The rope-a-dope is performed by a boxer assuming a protected stance, in Ali's classic pose, lying against the ropes, and allowing his opponent to hit him, in the hope that the opponent will become tired and make mistakes which the boxer can exploit in a counterattack.” I hope that I am wrong about the drug industry’s strategy and motives.

Without active industry participation it isn’t clear how effective the FDA public hearing on social media will be. As Mark adroitly points out in today’s post, “The bulk of the other presentations are tertiary stakeholders perhaps sensing a vehicle for free self-promotion such as advertising and public relations firms and bloggers, but they aren't the real stakeholders in this issue.  The real stakeholders are those who are referred to in the meeting notice - the medical products industry.” I would also add the American public to the stakeholder list who also has considerable “skin in the game.”

Pharma’s active participation at many of the social media conferences that I recently attended indicates that something must be in it for pharma; otherwise they wouldn’t attend. There is no question that social media isn’t a passing fad and is now an integral part of the Web 2.0 experience. That said, for the first time in many years, drug makers have a unique opportunity to actively voice their ideas and concerns and collaboratively work with FDA to craft meaningful social media regulatory guidance. As many of us “outside observers” know, the agency doesn’t have all the answers and we would like to think that drug makers would extend a helping hand to avoid confusion and misunderstandings about the use of social media to promote their products and services. While only 4 companies are scheduled to speak at the hearings, I suspect that there will be many life science company representatives in attendance. Nevertheless, despite what may happen at this week’s hearings, I hope that, going forward, drug makers and device manufacturers will begin to view FDA as a partner rather than an adversary!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New York Times reported today that AstraZeneca has agreed to pay $520 million to settle two federal investigations and two whistle blower lawsuits over the sale, marketing and off-label promotion of its blockbuster antipsychotic drug Seroquel. Despite this settlement, UK-based AstraZeneca still must contend with 14,444 civil lawsuits filed by many patients who developed diabetes and other health related conditions because of misleading marketing that failed to adequately disclose that the drug caused abnormal weight gain.                     

AstraZeneca joins a growing list of pharmaceutical companies that have been penalized for off label promotion and misleading advertising. Earlier this year Eli Lilly & Co paid $1.4 billion over its marketing of another antipsychotic drug Zyprexa and Pfizer announced that it would pay $2.3 billion including a record-breaking criminal fine of $1.195 billion mostly for its painkiller Bextra which was withdrawn from the market.

Despite the size of the fines and settlement figures for these recent cases, they are a drop in the bucket when compared with the amount of money generated by illicit marketing and advertising. For example, the $520 million that AstraZeneca has agreed to pay to settle the Seroquel case pales in comparison to the $17 billion that the drug has generated in US sales since 2004. The same was true for Zyprexa and Bextra.

While these settlements cannot repair much of the damage that has been done to unknowing patients, it signals that the US government is beginning to live up to its pledge to provide safe and efficacious medicines to the American public.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There was another article in today’s New York Times lamenting the marketing practices utilized by drug companies to inform physicians about their products. While these practices may be troubling to legislators and the American public, everybody who works in the life sciences industry including regulatory agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) understands the “rules of the game” and how it is played. However,

over the past three years, there has been a full frontal assault on direct-to-consumer advertising and marketing and sales practices used by drug makers to hawk their products to physicians and the American public. This has largely been an over reaction to the lack of regulatory oversight of drug manufacturers during the Bush administration. The new regulations have severely limited what sales representatives can offer physicians e.g. gifts and free lunches and dinners, for more face time to sell their products. Consequently, the only means left available to drug makers to reach large numbers of physicians is marketing through medical education.

This is how it works. Companies annually budget monies to pay highly recognized physicians aka key opinion leaders (KOLs) to give lectures to physicians that might influence their prescribing habits. These lectures often take the form of informational seminars that focus on treatment options for certain therapeutic indications which often times subliminally highlight the advantages of the sponsor’s product over its competitors. Not surprisingly, the effectiveness and success of these programs is usually directly proportional to the sums of money invested in them. For example, in 2004, Forrest Laboratories (the subject of the NY Times article) planned on spending “$34.7 million to pay 2000 physicians to deliver 15,000 marketing lectures about Lexapro (an antidepressant) to their peers in one year.” The investment appears to have paid off; sales Lexapro reached $2.3 billion in 2008 even though a lower cost generic version of the drug is available. And, while the Forrest investment in medical education may appear to be a large one, it pales in comparison to the sums invested in medical education programs by much larger companies like Pfizer, Merck and others.

While certain members of Congress may be “shocked and outraged,” these practices are sanctioned by FDA. And, as long as drug makers are compliant and adhere to the rules they shouldn’t be faulted or penalized for their efforts. The point that I am trying to make is that drug makers, like all other for-profit entities, must maximize sales to generate sufficient profits remain in business. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to legislators or the American public for that matter, that drug makers use all legally available means to maximize the sale of their products. If Congress doesn’t like what drug makers are doing, then they ought to stop complaining and legislate changes to the rules. Put simply, it’s time for Congress to “put up or shut up.”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I suspect that a majority of BioJobBlog readers have at one time or another been prescribed a drug to treat a particular medical condition or ailment. Like most of you, I assumed that my prescription information and history was private and that only healthcare professionals were privy to it. However, after reading an article in this Sunday’s NY Times, I learned how wrong I was! Much to my dismay,  I learned that prescription information including the name and dosage of a drug, the name and address of the physician who prescribed as well as a patient’s address and social security number is a commodity that is regularly bought and sold usually with a patients’ knowledge or permission. And apparently, this practice is perfectly legal as long as patient’s names are removed or encrypted before the information is sold, typically to drug manufacturers.

Unfortunately, privacy experts and information technology specialists contend that it isn’t difficult to match names, addresses, and social security numbers to reconstruct information that had supposedly been rendered anonymous. To make matters worse, until very recently, federal patient privacy and data security rules were loosely enforced and frequently abused by medical marketers, advertisers, drug manufacturers and retail pharmacies. Finally, re-identifying a patient’s prescription drug information and history provides drug makers with a powerful tool to target and market drugs to specific patient populations.

Tracking prescriptions and mining prescription data is not new—it has been big business for many decades. The major players in the drug mining business are companies like IMS Health, Verispan and CVS Caremark. Also, large discount pharmacy retailers like Walgreens and Target engage in this practice and they all sell their prescription information data to interested parties. Prescription drug data-mining companies say that their services are valuable and warranted because gathering and analyzing information from tens of thousands of patients helps drug manufacturers to identify trends and potential safety and tolerability issues with prescription drugs. Nevertheless, despite assertions that prescription drug data are anonymous when it is sold, class action and private lawsuits alleging this not to be the case have been filed against some of the major players including Walgreens, IMS Health and CVS Caremark. While this is troubling, loopholes in the current prescription drug data mining regulations allow pharmacy companies like Walgreens and others to accept money from drug manufacturers to mail advice and reminders to customers to take their medications without first obtaining their permission. The loopholes also allow drug makers to send customers’ promotional information and materials about drugs other than the ones that they are already taking.

Under the Obama Administration’s $19 billion healthcare stimulus package, selling prescription drug data to drug makers will still be allowed (only if patient’s names are removed). Also, subsidized marketing by drug makers will be allowed to continue but companies will no longer be able to promote drugs other than those the customer already buys. While the new legislation allows data mining and the sale of prescription drug information to continue, its primary goal is to tighten and insure patient privacy so that personal prescription drug history and information can no longer be used to exploit the buying habits and behaviors of individual American consumers.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Until today, direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC) has received very little attention during the recent spate of debates over healthcare reform. The NY Times reports that several members of Congress are introducing legislation that would curb the reach of DTC advertising. While reasons for introduction of new legislation vary—ranging from moral indignation over the mention of four hour erections during prime time to tax deductions for pharma companies that engage in DTC advertising—it appears that no stone will be unturned during the ongoing debate over US healthcare reform.

For those of you who may not know, DTC advertising is allowed in only two countries—New Zealand and the US. According to a Nielson Media Research report, in 2008 drug makers spent about $4.8 billion on DTC advertising for television, radio and print ads in magazines and newspapers. Not surprisingly, supporters of DTC point out that the amount of money spent by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies on DTC advertising is negligible as percentage of total health care spending. Nevertheless, data convincingly show that DTC advertising can increase the number of prescriptions written for newly approved drugs. Of the $235 billion spent on prescription drugs last year, approximately $8 billion was attributed to DTC advertising.

Although some academic studies suggest that DTC advertising can help people who need to start taking drugs and others to remain compliant with existing treatment regimens, the lack of fair balance in many DTC ads that promote drug benefits and downplay risks is what is driving legislation to curb its use. The recent brouhahas over Pfizer’s Lipitor commercials, Bayer Pharmaceuticals’ ad that deceptively promoted its popular birth control drug Yaz and Merck and Schering Plough’s Vytorin ads that overstated the health benefits of the cholesterol lowering drug have convinced legislators that DTC must be fixed.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Division of Drug Advertising Marketing and Communications (DDMAC) oversees and has full responsibility for DTC advertising. However, it is important to note, that under current regulations, companies aren’t required to get approval from the agency before they appear. Sharing DTC ads with FDA is completely voluntary. However, if FDA receives enough complaints about particular ads, DDMAC will review them and notify the company if regulators believe that they contain information that is misleading, unbalanced or unsubstantiated. Companies that violate DDMAC policies and guidelines are typically required to show run all future DTC ads by FDA regulators before they can shown to the public.

Because of the small numbers of patients that are typically used during clinical evaluation of new drugs, it may take as long as five years before side effects and problems with certain drugs begin to emerge. With this in mind, DTC critics argue that there ought to be a five year waiting period or moratorium on DTC advertising after a drug is approved. Interestingly, about ten years ago, a friend who works for a major pharmaceutical company told me that she always waits five years before using a newly approved drug.  At the time, I thought it was an odd thing for her to say since she had been in the business for over 15 years. However over the past five years or so, several high profile drugs that were heavily promoted by DTC advertising had to be withdrawn from the market. To that end, while DTC advertising may be “great for business,” it may not always be in the best interest of American consumers who use prescription drugs!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many readers have contacted me about advertising on BioJobBlog. To accommodate those requests, I will be offering side bar ads no wider than 196 pixels to interested parties. Please contact me regarding the ad rates.

When I first started BioJobBlog I had no intention of advertising to generate revenue. Unfortunately, blog maintenance costs and the economy have taken its toll on me. I will try to continue to deliver interesting, relevant and uncompromising content to you despite the modest advertising revenue I hope to capture.

Thanks for reading my blog!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting sic Advertising???

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mark Senak, who writes the outstanding Eye on FDA blog, posted an interesting article today that tracks the number of warning letters issued by DDMAC (the center that oversees life sciences marketing and advertising) over the past 12 years. Not surprisingly, the number of warning letters issued by DDMAC fell precipitously during the Bush Administration, after reaching a high during the waning years of Bill Clinton’s presidency. In fact, the number of warning letters issued by DDMAC during the first two quarters of 2009 exceeds the yearly total of warning letters issued in the past 4 of five years. However, as Mark clearly points out, the 2009 year to date number of warning letters may be artificially inflated because of 14 identical ones issued on the same day (April 2) to 14 different companies regarding internet search engine advertising. Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the agency is beginning to emerge from a long slumber and that US regulatory oversight may be entering a new, more scrutinizing era. 

While increasing regulatory scrutiny may be appropriate after 8 years of no regulation at all, it is important that FDA doesn’t overreact and unnecessarily stifle new drug and product development. To that end, I believe that the agency needs to be reorganized, revamped and revitalized to replace its traditionally “reactive” way of doing business with a more “proactive” one.  For example, there is a burgeoning need for regulatory guidance on the use of social media by companies in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices and diagnostics industries. Unfortunately, FDA has been unwilling or unable to enunciate a cogent regulatory strategy or any meaningful guidance on this topic. Consequently, many life sciences companies have refrained from using social media because they simply don’t know how to implement it in the current regulatory environment. I believe that FDA, not the companies it regulates, should take the lead on this issue.

Finally, it is becoming increasingly apparent that many companies will continue to refrain from using social media and other Web 2.0 tools until FDA crafts some useful guidance on these topics. Sadly, Web 3.0 is just around the corner and the agency is still struggling with regulatory guidance for corporate websites. Maybe Congress needs to craft some new FDA modernization legislation—it has been 12 years since the last modernization bill was passed!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today's New York Times reported that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued warning letters and ordered 14 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to stop running what it calls misleading ads on internet search pages displayed by search engines like Google. The agency faulted the companies for failing to identify product names (brand) and not listing potential side effects (only benefits) for the drugs. In other words, the ads lacked “fair balance” something that FDA stresses and that all drug makers are very familiar with. 

Drug makers and other interest groups pay search engines like Google to place ads on search result pages after someone types in a related search word. The sidebar ads typically contain a eye-catching headline about a relevant medical condition or product and links to websites promoting certain products. The companies receiving warning letters included: Bayer, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cephalon, Eli Lilly, Forrest Laboratories, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi-Aventis. Not surprisingly, most of the world’s largest and most profitable were guilty of running misleading Internet search engine ads.

Historically, drug companies and FDA have engaged in a cat and mouse approach when it comes to advertising and marketing drug and medical devices and diagnostics. This is because FDA’s existing regulations that guide marketing and advertising practices are relatively lax and it provides drug makers with the opportunity to see how far they can push the agency before “they get caught.” While this practice may have been acceptable for print and television advertising, it may no longer be appropriate for Internet advertising— which potentially has a much broader and larger reach than traditional media because there are not national borders on the Web. Unfortunately, FDA has been slow (reluctant?) to react to digital media and is even more perplexed about social media and the drug industry. Rather than continue to play cat and mouse, I think it would be in the best interest of consumers if FDA and drug makers would sit down and craft new guidance on regulating Internet advertising and marketing practices. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the old rules are no longer sufficient as digital and social media continue to evolve.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!! 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Facebook contends that it has over 175 million members, making it the largest social network in the world! Interestingly, according to an article in today’s New York Times, most US members are “still relatively young.” “Facebook offers advertisers a target of 54.4 million members of all ages. But if an advertiser wants to narrow its target audience to those 25 or older, the number drops to 28.8 million. Narrow it to those 30 or older, and Facebook has 20.3 million to offer.” However, this is not surprisingly because people 30 and over weren’t allowed to join Facebook until 2006. In fact, many over-30 individuals have yet to sign up! In support of this, I am increasingly getting friend requests from my contemporaries—most of whom are in their 40s and 50s.

Each week, a million new members are added in the United States and five million globally—the 30-and-older group is its fastest-growing demographic (and the one with the most money to spend).  Further, Facebook members are becoming increasingly social and gregarious. In December the average number of “friends” per member was 100. Since then, it has grown to 120 per member according to a Facebook spokesperson. If Facebook continues to grow at its current rate, it will likely experience unprecedented and astonishing growth in the next few years. And, when it comes to monetizing social networks, bigger is always better!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Networking!!!!!!!!!! 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Just when the medical device industry is gaining steam and poised to challenge pharma and biotech companies for market share and profits, some lawmakers have begun to question the medical devices industry’s direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising practices. Last year, the medical device industry spent about $193 million for DTC advertising on television and the Internet—a mere fraction of what was spent on DTC consumer advertising for prescription drugs sold by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

One reason given by lawmakers to justify its current scrutiny of medical devices DTC advertising practices is that “medical devices can have more of an impact on a patient’s well-being than a drug because devices often require surgery to implant and may remain inside the body for years.” However, in response, a representative from the Advanced Medical Technology Association, a medical devices trade group said, “While an advertisement may stimulate a patient to ask a doctor about device, the process of receiving one involves a discussion of its benefits and risks.” He went on to say “You may take a pill because it doesn’t involve very much. But you don’t undergo surgery unless you think you have a serious need for it.” 

Another reason cited by Herb Kohl, a Democrat from Wisconsin is “The medical device industry is just beginning to get into the game.” Yes, Mr Kohl’s assertion is absolutely correct. Unlike most pharma and biotechnology companies, which have engaged in unregulated DTC advertising for the past 10 years or so—and literally made billions— the medical devices industry was slow to recognize that DTC advertising could be used to effectively hawk its products. I guess the thought here is: “to head ‘em off at the pass!”

The current call for an investigation into the DTC practices of some medical devices companies raises several interesting questions. First, is the investigation simply a red herring to distract FDA from crafting new regulations to rein in and more tightly control DTC advertising by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies? (While FDA has recently revised some of its DTC advertising guidelines, the changes are still not rigorous enough). Second, could the call for increased scrutiny of the medical devices industry simply be an attempt (by pharma and biotech lobbyists) to stifle the recent, explosive growth of the medical devices industry?  Finally, why are lawmakers rather than the agency (which oversees the device industry) investigating the DTC advertising practices of medical devices companies?

On a personal note, I support tighter regulations and increased scrutiny of the DTC advertising practices for all  life sciences companies. Although DTC ads are directly aimed at consumers, their real purpose is to influence prescribing practices of physicians by inducing patients to ask questions about whether or not the drugs or devices that they “saw on TV” are appropriate for them. That said, I believe that it is up to FDA to insure that all DTC ads are fairly balanced (risks vs. benefits) and medically accurate before they are viewed by the American public.

Until next time…

 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I previously posted a piece on BioJobBlog about direct-to-consumer advertising that is used by many pharma and biotech companies to induce people who see the ads to ask their physicians about a “ drug that they heard about on TV.” John Heubusch who runs Writing Frontier.com, read the post and pointed me in the direction of a piece that he wrote on the same topic. His slant on the topic is different than mine but we both reach similar conclusions—DTC advertising needs to be better regulated by FDA.

Until next time… 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

No doubt that many of you already know that DTC advertising is an effective way for pharmaceutical companies to “push” their drugs. However, when I saw the amount of money that was spent on DTC in 2007 I was shocked! In 2007 alone, drug companies spent $5,375,117,382 on advertising. Yes, that's $5.375 billion dollars (think of how many research grants could have been funded or how much money could have been spent on universal healthcare!).  The aggregate ROI for 25 pharma companies examined was impressive–totaling about $32 billion or roughly 7-fold!

A table published by Consumer Reports AdWatch highlights 25 of the biggest spenders along with their sales, giving an indication of how much their ad spending has paid off —or not! The drugs that received the biggest bang for the buck are bolded. Despite the conflict of interest and false advertising DTC flap over Lipitor, it still managed to have the third best return among the 25 products analyzed.

Drug	Approved for1	DTC advertising 20072	Retail sales 20073	Sales per ad dollar spent
Lunesta	Insomnia	$294,180,616	$712,740,000	$2.42
Ambien CR	Insomnia	$204,065,972	$876,028,000	$4.29
Cymbalta	Anxiety, depression, diabetic neuropathy pain	$183,336,687	$1,732,827,000	$9.45
Lipitor	High cholesterol	$180,866,960	$6,165,531,000	$34.09
Plavix	Stroke risk reduction	$174,942,656	$3,082,712,000	$17.62
Rozerem	Insomnia	$171,466,210	$116,658,000	$0.68
Cialis	Erectile dysfunction	$151,649,663	$453,233,000	$2.99
Vytorin	High cholesterol	$140,715,035	$1,938,882,000	$13.78
Nasonex	Seasonal allergies	$131,220,183	$892,534,000	$6.80
Advair Diskus	Asthma	$121,197,100	$3,390,766,000	$27.98
Boniva	Osteoporosis	$112,958,755	$404,109,000	$3.58
Zetia	High cholesterol	$110,357,144	$1,405,066,000	$12.73
Requip	Restless Legs Syndrome, Parkinson's disease	$106,271,994	$407,665,000	$3.84
Abilify	Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia	$105,768,412	$1,781,562,000	$16.84
Flomax	Enlarged prostate	$100,969,013	$1,002,163,000	$9.93
Nexium	Heartburn and GERD	$96,960,417	$4,355,901,000	$44.92
Valtrex	Herpes and shingles	$88,409,332	$1,395,313,000	$15.78
Spiriva	Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease	$84,002,514	$868,226,000	$10.34
Yaz	Contraceptive pill	$83,566,746	$254,592,000	$3.05
Viagra	Erectile dysfunction	$83,064,378	$824,946,000	$9.93
Lyrica	Fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain	$70,663,685	$1,000,069,000	$14.15
Chantix	Smoking cessation	$63,979,755	$764,723,000	$11.95
Singulair	Asthma and seasonal allergies	$63,289,786	$2,863,326,000	$45.24
Celebrex	Pain from conditions like osteoarthritis	$55,230,236	$1,416,084,000	$25.64
Zyrtec	Seasonal allergies	$38,476,595	$1,302,807,000	$33.86

¹Consumer Reports Consumer Drug Reference, 2008.
²Data compiled by Nielsen Media research, March 2008.
³Data provided by Drug Topics and Verispan, March 2008.


No wonder why everybody wants to work for a pharmaceutical company–despite the downsizing there is still substantial money to be made!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

The newest culprit in the direct-to-consumer (DTC) television ad cat and mouse game between pharmaceutical manufacturers and US regulators is Cordis, a medical device subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. The ad in question deals with promotion of the use of a cardiac stent called Cypher that is manufactured by the company. The television ad is the first ever to market a medical device. Nevertheless, according to an article published in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine, the ad overstates the benefits of the stent without mentioning possible adverse effects that can include heart attack and stroke.

The current brouhaha is nothing new in the ongoing battle between drug manufacturer (and now, medical device companies) and regulators over DTC advertising. As some of you may know, the US is one of a few industrialized countries in the world that allows DTC advertising.  Further, DTC ads don’t require FDA review or approval before they are aired or printed–although in some instances, companies do request FDA review. 

Because of growing problems with DTC ads (especially television spots), there is mounting pressure on FDA to limit consumer medical advertising or, at the very least, increase regulatory oversight of it. To that end, on Friday, an FDA advisory panel will convene to discuss whether television ads for prescription medications ought to include a statement encouraging consumers to report any adverse side effects via a toll free number to the agency. At present, this type of disclaimer is only required for DTC print ads.

For those of you who don’t know, FDA has (by law) a post marketing surveillance network in place to allow consumers to report any side effects (big or small) that they may experience after taking prescription or over the counter medications. Further, companies are required by FDA regulations to immediately report any and all side effects associated with their products.

Of interest, in a hearing last week on drug advertising (being conducted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee), several drug company representatives in attendance were asked whether or not they would support a toll free number on television ads to encourage viewers to report adverse side effects. Surprisingly (perhaps not) they could or would not directly answer the question. According to John D. Dingell, chair of the committee and advocate of greater regulatory oversight of DTC advertising, “Some ads appear to be misleading and others appear to be downright deceptive.” Imagine that!

What is particularly disturbing about the DTC controversy is that government officials and legislators are frequently incredulous when they learn about DTC advertising abuses. As I have stated time and time again, there are larges sums of money at stake here. This coupled, with little or no regulation, and mounting pressures to keep company stock price shares high, is a sure recipe for disaster (as we have begun to witness over the past 5 years or more). In my opinion, there is only a single solution to the problem–craft more stringent regulations and greater FDA oversight for DTC advertising. Asking drug and medical devices companies to regulate themselves in any area is tantamount to allowing a fox to live in a hen house—the pickings are easy and only the fox gets fat!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I am old enough to remember when the artificial heart was invented and used to extend the life of Barney Clark, a dentist in Seattle, WA. It was a phenomenal accomplishment back in the day. So, it seemed appropriate to me that Robert Jarvik, the guy who invented the artificial heart, appeared in Pfizer’s Lipitor ads as a spokesperson to promote heart health. However, a Congressional committee examining consumer drug advertising has questioned whether the Lipitor ads may have misrepresented Dr. Jarvik and his credentials to promote the drug.

Although Dr. Jarvik has a medical degree, he is not a cardiologist nor is he licensed to practice medicine! Further, one television ads depicts Dr. Jarvik as an accomplished rower but the ad used a body double for him and, as it turns out, he does not even row! To make matters worse, a former colleague of Jarvik contends that he is not the actual inventor of the artificial heart. He suggested that the distinction belongs to Jarvik’s mentor Willem J. Kolff and his associate Tetsuzo Akutsu at the University of Utah. Go figure! Despite the firestorm, Pfizer continues to air the television ad ( I saw it just a few days ago).

Pfizer has spent more than $258 million advertising Lipitor (a cholesterol-lowering statin) since January 2006, most of it on the Jarvik campaign in an attempt to protect Lipitor from generic competition. Lipitor is the world’s best selling drug and generated $12.7 billion in revenues in 2007. While Lipitor has patent protection until 2010, some patients have already switched to a generic version of a competing cholesterol drug Zocor. According to published reports Pfizer agreed to pay Jarvik about $1.35 million under a two-year contract that expires next month. I think it is safe to assume that Jarvik will not appear in any future Lipitor ads.

As many of you may know, drug companies FDA is not required to review direct-to-consumer ads before they are aired to the American public. While some companies request FDA review of their promotional materials before they are used in advertising campaigns, the vast majority of companies do not. Unfortunately, because of this regulatory loophole, direct-to-consumer advertising has turned into something of a cat and mouse game–there are only consequences and penalties if you get caught misrepresenting or not fully disclosing information about your products.

In my opinion, Pfizer’s misrepresentation of Jarvik’s credentials (and Jarvik’s complicity) is unethical and unconscionable. More importantly, it demonstrates how easily and willing companies are to “bend the truth” to preserve blockbuster drug franchises that generate billions of dollars in annual revenues. I think that what Pfizer did was wrong and shameful. The company should be fined and sanctioned for the Lipitor campaign. That said, it is likely that the size of the fine levied by FDA will pale in comparison to Lipitor revenues generated by the Jarvik campaign. I believe that it is time for Congress and FDA close the loopholes in current direct-to-consumer advertising regulations–the safety and health of the American public depends on it!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link