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

Abbott Laboratories yesterday announced that it will buy Facet Biotech Corp. for about $450 million in cash. Facet, along with its development partner Biogen Idec, had planned on moving a potential monoclonal antibody (MAb) treatment for multiple sclerosis called daclizumab into late stage clinical development in the second quarter of this year. The company is also developing several different cancer treatments with other pharmaceutical partners.

Abbott’s purchase of Facet signals Abbott Laboratories’ ongoing commitment to biotechnology or protein-based drugs. The company launched Humira (a fully human MAb treatment for rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases) several years ago and it has managed to glean market share from older competitor’s products including Remicade (Johnson & Johnson) and Enbrel (Amgen/Pfizer) to become a blockbuster drug. MAbs are viewed by many as the “drugs of the future.” At present, there are over 350 MAb-based products in various stages of discovery and clinical development.

Earlier in the year, Biogen Idec offered to purchase Facet for $17.50 per share. Company executives and shareholders rejected the offer citing that they thought it was too low. Abbott offered $27 per share which represented a 67 percent premium to Facet’s closing stock price of $16.21 on Tuesday.  Both companies’ boards of directors have already approved the deal which is expected to close some time in the second quarter. It is not clear how the purchase will affect Facet employees but expect to see layoffs and a mass exodus by company executives.

Look for more cash purchases of biotech firms by pharmaceutical companies as debt continues to accrue and venture money remains scarce and difficult to come by.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

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

As many of you may recall, in 2001, Sam Waksal, founder and former CEO of the biotechnology company ImClone was convicted (along with his good friend Martha Stewart) for fraud and insider trading of ImClone stock. Waksal, who was released from prison in late 2008 and lived in a half way house for several months had kept a relatively low profile until earlier this month. Rumor has it that Sam along with Richard Mulligan, PhD a Harvard professor and former ImClone director and Dr. Larry Witte, a current executive vice president in the ImClone division of Eli Lilly are attempting raise about $50 million for the privately-held new venture called Kadmon. Other reports indicate that Waksal and other members of the Kadmon team are putting up $50 million as well. 

According to insider reports the company will ostensibly focus on cancer and infectious disease targets and—taking a page out of the Cubist, Celgene and Sepracor play books—re-purpose once promising drug candidates discarded by other companies. To that end, according an article in TheStreet, the company's drug research programs include a "statin inhibitor for influenza" from a "leading Ivy League university" along with a variety of monoclonal antibodies for use as targeted cancer treatments, similar to Erbitux. Kadmon is also eyeing several existing cancer-focused drug companies, one of which already has a marketed product, as acquisition targets, according to the prospectus. For those of you who may be wondering about whether or not Waksal can legally start another biotechnology company, an agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission bars Waksal from serving as an officer in a publicly traded company, but as previously mentioned, Kadmon is a private venture.

Whether you like Waksal or not, his track record in the biotechnology industry speaks for itself. Unlike the vast majority of his rivals, Waksal shepherded a molecule from discovery through commercialization. That molecule, a monoclonal antibody called Erbitux, became a multibillion dollar a year treatment for certain forms of colorectal cancer. More importantly, Waksal was one of the first to recognize that humanized monoclonal antibodies directed against certain cellular receptors could be used to treat a variety of oncology indications—a concept that is driving a large portion of discovery and product development in the oncology space. For those of you who may not know, Eli Lilly purchased ImClone two years ago for $7.0 billion dollars after a very public and acrimonious fight over the sale price of ImClone erupted between Carl Icahn, ImClone’s Chairman, and Jim Cornelius, CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). ImClone and BMS co-marketed Eribitux prior to the sale.

Waksal has been in and around the biotechnology industry for over 30 years and many consider him to be one of the early industry pioneers. Unfortunately, despite his dubious past, Waksal represents a dying breed of visionaries whose entrepreneurial spirit and unorthodox approach to new drug development is largely responsible the biotechnology industry’s current largess. Like other ex-felons Waksal did his time and like all Americans he is entitled to a second chance.

Let’s hope that Sam learned a few things during his incarceration and is smarter and wiser for his second and possibly final act. I wish Waksal success in his new venture and I hope that he and his team still possess the insight, creativity and tenacity required to discover and develop innovative oncology and infectious diseases drugs.

Until next time....

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

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

Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) directed against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors on cancer cells, have been found to slow the growth of a variety of cancers including colorectal, breast and lung.  While a number of blockbuster biotechnology products( based on these MAbs (Avastin by Genentech/Roche and Eribitux by Bristol-Myers Squibb/ImClone/Merck KGA) have been approved to treat a variety of different cancers their effectiveness as cancer treatments has been the subject of intense debate since their approvals.

Although numerous human clinical trials have shown that VEGF inhibitors slow the growth and development of tumors, they, as a class, don’t seem to significantly increase the survival time for most cancer patients. Further, Avastin and Erbitux are generally not used as stand alone treatments but are used in combination with more tradition anti-cancer chemotherapies. The high costs of these drugs, (Avastin’s worldwide sales hit $ 3.5 billion last year) and their variable effectiveness have caused many to question the usefulness of this class of drugs to treat cancer patients.

The well-publicized use of these drugs as cancer treatments coupled with anecdotal evidence about their effectiveness has put practicing oncologists between a rock and a hard place when it comes to treating patietns with cancer. In an article in Sunday’s New York Times one prominent oncologist said that depsite the controversy,  “I still use Avastin routinely. It’s not a slam dunk and, in fact, the incremental benefit may be more modest than we want to admit.” Others are more sanguine about VEGF inhibitors as cancer treatments “Even when these drugs ‘work,’ what kind of impact are you talking about?” said Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. But we market them and give them to everybody.”  

Nevertheless, most oncologists find it difficult to withhold Avastin or Erbitux from cancer patients seeking hope. As one oncologist put it “ When I am not sitting in front of a patient, I think about whether drugs like Avastin are worth it to society. But when facing a seriously ill patient, who, based on clinical trial results, might benefit — even if only a little — from Avastin, I think about the patient’s needs.” 

Regardless of their therapeutic value, the main issue with this class of anti-cancer drugs is cost. Avastin treatment costs patients about $4000-$9000 per month— Eribitux treatment is even more costly! While Medicare and most private insurers cover 80% of the cost, patients can be responsible for 20% or more of treatmetn costs.  As posited in the Times article “If Avastin were inexpensive or if it cured cancer or even held it at bay, as the drug Gleevec does for blood cancer, few might care.”

Are anti-VEGF drugs real cancer treatments or expensive red herrings? Clearly, the jury is still out on that one. That said, I think that only cancer patients can truly provide an accurate response to that question!

Until next time…

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

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