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

When I was a graduate student back in the dark ages, I took an advanced statistics course and then briefly worked in a laboratory where statistical analysis of data derived from animal models of disease (in this case the guinea pig model of tuberculosis) were essential. After leaving that lab, I developed an appreciation for the power of statistics (when appropriately designed according the laws of parametric statistics) and actually used statistical analyses of in vitro data for my PhD thesis. Unlike me, most of my contemporaries never understood statistics and thought that statistics can be used to manipulate data to confirm any hypothesis put forth by an investigator.

Imagine my surprise when I read in today’s NY Times that statistics are one of the hottest new career opportunities in technology and related industries. This is because billions of bytes of data (aka "big data sets")are generated daily and someone (usually a statistician or a person with knowledge of some arcane statistical analyses) is regarded to tease out trends and interpret the data. Companies like Google, Facebook, as wells as marketers, risk analysts, spies and companies that engage in competitive intelligence are desperately seeking new employees who understand applied statistic, analytics and trend analysis.

According to a recent LinkedIn survey, from 2009 to 2011 the number of new jobs with titles related to analytics grew 53%. Unfortunately, there are not enough trained or qualified persons available to fill these positions at most of these companies. Because of workforce shortages, universities like Stanford, Harvard and North Carolina State (NC State) have created graduate programs to train students in statistics and advanced analytics. 

Ninety per cent of NC State advanced analytic students (a 10 month program created in 2006) annually found jobs. The average graduate’s starting salary for an entry-level job is $73,000. Stanford and Harvard statistics department graduates head to Google, Wall Street and in many instances bioscience companies and start with salaries of over $100,000.

Not surprisingly, competition for entry to these programs is getting fierce. NC State takes only 40 new students per year in its program (185 applicants last year). Moreover, this year, Stanford received over 800 applications for 60 openings in next’ years class; nearly twice the number of applications that it received three years ago.

Like it or not “big data” and analytics are de rigueur and persons with advanced analytics training may be the new rock stars. That said if you like statistics or love to look for trends in large data sets then a career in analytics may be right for you. Now, you have to figure out where to get the training.

Until next time...

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

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

An article in today’s NY Times entitled “New Ways to Exploit Raw Data May Bring Surge of Innovation, a Study Says” suggests that persons with quantitative skills and a firm grasp of the scientific method will be in high demand in the near future. This is because there is a current data surge coming from “sophisticated tracking of shipments, sales, suppliers and customers, as well e-mail, Web traffic and social network comments.” And, the quantity of business data has been estimated to double every 1.2 years!

According to the report “Big Data: The Next Frontier for Innovation, Competition and Productivity” put together by the McKinsey Global Institute, harvesting, managing, mining and analyzing “big new data sets” can lead to a new wave of innovation, accelerated productivity and economic growth. And, the place where this may be felt first is the US healthcare system. The report asserts that better management of big data sets can lead to as much as $300 billion in savings. Also, American retail companies could possibly increase their operating profit margins by as much as 60 percent. However, one of the major hurdles to this paradigm shift is a talent and skills gap. The US alone will likely need 140,000 to 190,000 with expertise in statistical methods and data-analysis skills. McKinsey also notes that an additional 1.5 million data-literate manages will be required. Accordingly, “Every manager will really have to understand something about statistics and experimental design going forward,” noted one of the report’s authors.

As far as jobs for scientists in the healthcare realm are concerned, the report suggests that

“....the biggest slice of the $300 billion gain is expected to come from more effectively using data to inform treatment decisions. The tools include clinical decision support to assist doctors, and comparative effectiveness research to make more informed decisions on drug therapy.” That said, life scientists with backgrounds in statistical analyses, bioinformatics, genomics, public health, epidemiology and quantitative analysis will be ideal candidates for these new job opportunities."

While these types of jobs (mainly health informatics) are certain to available in the future, it isn’t clear how soon. This is because the big-data trend has just begun and, according to economists, it may take years to recognize its financial advantages and benefits. In any event, it is something for life scientists who may be considering alternate career options, to think about. To that end, if you begin to train for these opportunities now, you may find yourself in the right place at the right time in the not-to-distant future.

Until next time....

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

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

The NY Times today reported that a 15-year veteran chemist at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been charged with using confidential and proprietary information about pending drug applications to buy and sell pharmaceutical and biotechnology company stock.

According to a criminal complaint filed by the US Justice Department, Cheng Yi Liang, 57 and his son Andrew made millions trading stocks on inside information since 2007. The criminal lawsuit alleges that the Liangs traded stocks in five pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that had drug applications under review at the agency. Cheng Yi Liang’s job gave him access to a password protected-database that tracked the progress of new drug applications. Some of the companies leveraged by the Liangs included Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Clinical Data, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Middlebrook Pharmaceuticals and Progenics. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) simultaneously filed a civil securities fraud lawsuit against Cheng Yi Liang. 

The elder Liang is accused in the criminal complaint of “of using the FDA database to get an early look at F.D.A. decisions on companies developing drugs and then working with his son to trade on that knowledge, buying stock ahead of good news and selling it before bad news was announced. Both complaints assert that the defendants made just under $2.3 million in direct profits and avoided an additional $1.3 million in losses”. Further, the S.E.C. complaint accused FDA employee Liang of illegally trading ahead of more than two dozen F.D.A. announcements involving drug applications by 19 companies.

The case is noteworthy because, according to the Times article “it is uncommon for insider-trading investigations to involve FDA, despite the significant amount of market-moving information that passes through the agency each year. The agency maintains a rigorous ethics code and imposes significant restrictions on stock ownership and trading by its employees.”  The good news is that insider trading at FDA is rare and that a majority of its employee maintain ethical and moral standards that are consistent with the mission of the agency which is to supply the American public with safe and efficacious medicines. However, while the Liangs got caught, it does not mean that other less-than- scrupulous employees at FDA have also not benefited from less sophisticated insider trading schemes than those employed by the defendants. After all, FDA employees are human like the rest of us and the temptation to “get rich quickly” can be overwhelming especially during hard financial times.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try FDA, there is at least one open position that needs to be filled)

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

The conversation about follow-on biologics became extremely muted after passage of the US Healthcare Reform Act which included a 12 year period of data exclusivity for innovator company products. This provision inhibits biosimilar manufacturers from introducing generic versions of branded biologics for 12 years from the date the US Food and Drug Administration granted a license for the branded product. While this may effectively limit activity in the follow-on biologics space in the US, it didn’t stop Merck from launching its BioVentures Division (dedicated to follow-on biologics development) almost two years ago.

At the time of the announcement Merck executives in charge of the BioVentures Division divulged that its first product would be a PEGylated version of Amgen’s anemia drug Epogen (EPO). Unfortunately, a PEGylated version of EPO doesn’t qualify as a follow-on biologics because PEGylated proteins are considered new molecular entities (NMEs) by regulatory agencies. Nevertheless, Merck also said it would develop other follow-on products and that its efforts would be based primarily on the proprietary humanized yeast biomanufacturing platform it acquired after purchasing Glycofi, a New Hampshire-based biopharmaceutical company that developed the technology. Interestingly, two weeks ago Merck announced that it was abandoning the PEGylated-EPO product that it mentioned two years ago at the BioVentures kick off press conference.

It isn’t clear whether or not Merck jettisoned the project because of patent infringement litigation, regulatory concerns or possibly because of the increasingly fierce competition in the EPO space. Another possibility is that pharmaceutical companies have finally realized that biologically-active proteins are costly to manufacture and have limited therapeutic applicability as compared with monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) which are taking the biopharmaceutical industry by storm. At last count, there were over 300 MAbs in various phases of pre-clinical development with and about 125 in late stage clinical development. Last week, Teva and Lonza announced plans to develop a biosimilar version of Roche’s anti-inflammatory and cancer MAb Rituxan (rituximab)—kicking off a new era in the biosimilar industry.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with or remain interested in the follow-on biologics debate, I came across a nice PowerPoint presentation given by Teruhide Yamaguchi at the Division of Biological Chemistry and Biologicals at the National Institutes of Health.

Quality Safety and Efficacy of Follow-on Biologics

Until next time...

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

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

While I was pleased that President Obama and the Democrats were finally able to deliver much needed reform to an ailing American healthcare system, the compromises that were made to pass the bill are troubling. First, language allowing reimportation of lower cost drugs from Canada and other developed nations was eliminated from the bill. Second, the provisions allowing the contentious 12 year data exclusivity provision for generic versions of biologic and biotechnology drugs remained in the final bill. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, any language alluding to or implying that the US government, may, in the future, be able to negotiate or regulate drug prices was obliterated. In short, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries received all of the assurances and guarantees that were in the deal brokered by Billy Tauzin, the former head of the lobbying group PhRMA, between the White House and PhRMA over a year ago. Surprisingly, Tauzin was fired by PhRMA several weeks ago because its leadership mistakenly thought that Tauzin conceded “too much” to the Obama Administration when he brokered the original health reform package with the White House. (At the time that Tauzin was fired, health care reform legislation appeared to be on life support and all but dead).

In the final analysis, big pharma and biotech will give back $85 billion over ten years —largely by agreeing to give back some of the profits it was allowed to collected from the egregiously flawed Medicare Part D legislation passed during the odious Bush Administration. While $85 billion may seem like a lot (to the average American citizen) to give back, it is important to note, that the size of the global pharmaceutical and biotechnology markets is over $600 billion per year. Although growth in these markets is beginning to slow in developed nations like the US and Japan (to high single digits), it is beginning to explode in heavily populated developing nations like China, India and Brazil where it is roughly $12-18%. Put simply, despite assertions to the contrary, business in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical markets is booming and likely to continue for the foreseeable future. In other words, the newly passed healthcare reform legislation is a “sweetheart deal” for the US life sciences industry.

Ironically, while the healthcare reform bill insures that almost all Americans will be entitled to healthcare coverage and that insurance companies cannot deny healthcare benefits to persons with pre-existing medical conditions, the legislation may actually limit the access of Americans to potentially life-saving biotechnology drugs. This is because the 12 year data exclusivity period for generic versions of branded, biotechnology drugs (otherwise know as follow-on biologics or biosimilars) remained in the final version of the healthcare reform bill.

As I previously mentioned, this provision disallows approval of follow-on biologics for a period of 12 years from the data that the original biologic received US regulatory approval. For example, if a branded biologic or biotechnology product garners US regulatory approval in 2010, the earliest date that a generic version of this product would be able to appear on the US market would be 2022. Moreover, in some instances, the 12 year data exclusivity provision may extend the so-called patent life of a product. Using the example above, if the patents protecting the product happen to expire in 2019, the innovator company is guaranteed an additional three years of marketing exclusivity before generic versions of the product can appear on the US market. Finally, the 12 year data exclusivity provision effectively prevents foreign biosimilar manufacturers from competing in the US biotechnology market until about 2018; a strategy designed to allow the US to maintain its dominance of the global biotechnology market. Interestingly, despite the approval of six or more biosimilars in Europe, these products have failed to catch on and are not able to compete with their branded, innovator counterparts.

In conclusion, I laud President Obama’s persistence and give him props for his ability to deliver (as promised) health reform to the American public. I have no doubt that the legislation will help to improve the delivery of healthcare in the US and hopefully improve the overall health of Americans. However, while the new healthcare reform legislation is a first, positive step, the American healthcare system will never entirely be “fixed’ until US drug prices are regulated—like they are in the rest of the world. Then, and only then, will the US government be able to control and contain healthcare costs in America.

Until next time…

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

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

In case you did not know, the 12 years of market exclusivity proposed for follow-on biologics by supporters and lobbyists for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries is part of the impending US healthcare reform legislation currently pending in Congress. While President Obama has publicly announced that he supports a five year period of data exclusivity for biologics (the same as the exclusivity period for generic small molecule drugs, it is unlikely that the President will be able to convince or coerce legislators to reconsider the 12 year data exclusivity provision. However, there was a brilliant Op-Ed piece in today’s New York Times written by Anthony So and Samuel Katz at Duke University which offers a plethora of financial and business reasons why the five year period makes a lot of sense!

1. Generic small molecule drugs have been estimated to save the American healthcare system as much as $734 billion over the past 25 year or so since the inception of the Hatch Waxman Act.
2. Biologics cost on average 22 times more than equivalent brand name prescription small molecule drugs
3. In 2008, 28% of sales of the life science industry’s top 100 products came from biologics and biotechnology products: by 2014 that share is expect to rise to about 50%
4. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission found that the top six selling biologics which include Epogen (Amgen) Avastin (Genentech) and Remicade (Centocor) accounted for $7.0 billion (43%) of Part B drug spending in 2007 (Part B covers the cost of doctor spending and outpatient visits)
5. Between 2006 and 2007, Medicare Part D (prescription drug coverage) spending on biologics increased by 36% as compared with a 22% increase in spending for small molecule drugs
6. Prices for biologics and biotechnology products have increased more rapidly than those for small molecule drugs
7. While industry leaders and their lobbyist contend that it costs more and takes longer to develop biologics and biotechnology products than small molecule drugs, based on reports by various industry trade groups it costs about $1.2 billion to develop biologics and roughly $1.318 billion for small molecule drugs
8. The US Federal Trade Commission, the independent federal agency whose main goals are to protect consumers and to ensure a strong competitive market by enforcing a variety of consumer protection and antitrust laws, recommended that the data exclusivity period for follow-on biologics should not exceed six years.

Despite the likelihood that follow-on biologics will substantially reduce prescription drug costs and healthcare spending, Congress has chosen to support questionable legislation that will delay access of Americans to less costly, efficacious follow-on biologics until at least 2020.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

Many progressives and left-leaning individuals (like me) voted for President Obama because he presented himself as somebody who will stand up for what he believes. Until recently, I, along with others, have been deeply disappointed in his performance and it was no longer clear to me what he truly believes in. However, his recent stand on healthcare reform (sadly without a public option), his performance at the global warming summit and most recently his quick response and unequivocal support for Haitian earthquake victims suggest to me that we are finally beginning to see what President Obama believes and what he is made up. To that end, Obama has turned up the heat to reduce the proposed 12 period of data exclusivity for biosimilars (aka follow-on biologics) in the bill that was passed by both the US House and Senate. Both the President and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA (of Hatch-Waxman fame) are trying to reduce the 12 year exclusivity 10 years or less. Obama previously went on record saying that he favored a 7 year exclusivity period for biosimilars.

Not surprisingly, the move has met with fierce opposition from the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries that argue the longer period is needed to encourage investment and R&D required to produce biopharmaceutical products. Lobbying by both sides has dramatically increased as healthcare reform is pretty much a done deal. However, brand companies have spent many millions more than generic manufacturers to lobby Congress on the 12 year period.

It is about time that an American President is willing to do what is in the best interest of the American public instead of what lobbyists and special interests are demanding. And, to those companies that steadfastly hold to the notion that biopharmaceuticals take an inordinately long time to bring to market I ask: “What’s in your pipeline?”

Until next time...

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

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

It is amazing the things you learn if you pay attention from time to time.  While attending a meeting on e-healthcare last week in Philadelphia I learned that according to the American public the pharmaceutical industry is less popular than the banking industry. This was startling to me given that the recent financial collapse was caused almost entirely by the banking industry.  That the pharmaceutical industry is more reviled than the banking industry suggests that life sciences company have a bit of PR work to do.  But, not to worry, people still hate the oil industry more than the pharmaceutical industry.

On another note, the US FDA decided to raise the cost of regulatory filings for fiscal year 2010.  The cost of filing an application with clinical data is $1.4 million (up from $ 1.2 million in FY 2009); $702, 750 for an application not requiring clinical data or a supplement requiring clinical data (up from $623,600 in 2009) and 457,200 as compared with $425,000 in FY 2009 for an establishment fee (for facilities where drugs are made).* 

I guess the agency figures that pharma can handle the increases despite poor public image and an ongoing recession.

* AAPS News Magazine, Oct-Nov '09

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

I don’t want to brag but I have been touting career options in health informatics and health information technology (HIT) for the past year or so. Today, I came across a post by CareerBuilders declaring health informatics and HIT are the hottest new career trends to hit the market in recent years. 

As the drive towards digitizing medical and healthcare records continue, there will be literally thousands of job opportunities for people with the right skill sets. Getting a nursing degree is one of the steps to achieve a great career in health informatics!

Health informatics will put technology in place that provides hospitals and other health-care providers with access to an electronic network of vital patient information such as like medical histories and prescriptions. The information age finally meets healthcare administration.

The facts
The health informatics initiative won’t succeed unless employees — that’s you! — bring the specialized skills needed to build and expand the network. All other pieces are in place:

• The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes $20.6 billion to help providers drive adoption and development of the IT infrastructure needed
• The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects health information management employment to grow nearly 18 percent by 2016
• The BLS projects a need for more than 6,000 new professionals each year through 2014 — but only 2,600 graduates have entered the field this past year 

Your opportunity
To succeed, health informatics (HIM) will demand a wide variety of specialized positions across IT and health care. It will engage conventional experience from both areas — such as registered nurses and LPNs/LVNs, or IT implementation specialists and IT project managers — if you’re looking for a new twist on your current career.

But new positions will also thrive in this hybrid field. Look for new HIM job titles in your next job search, like health IT professionals, HIM coders, HIM medical records professionals and various health informatics specialists, including trainers, researchers and analysts.

Get online to check out the job titles mentioned above and listed below for related descriptions, and see if you might need any additional training to meet requirements: 

Nursing
- Telemedicine clinical professionals

- Chief nursing information officers

- Clinical IT liaisons 

Again, getting a nursing degree is one of the steps to achieve a successful career in health informatics

Health-care administration
- Medical and health services managers

- Document scanners

- Data entry clerks

- File clerks

IT specialists
- Senior programmers

- Senior clinical analysts

- Database analysts

- Developers

- Business analysts

- Software engineers

- Data integration specialists

Not too shabby of a list! In a previous blog post I identified a variety of training options for people interested in pursuing careers in health informatics and HIT. Check it out!

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

The rancorous debate over a regulatory approval pathway for follow-on biologics (aka biosimilars) continues to rage on in the US Congress. Despite recommendations from the Federal Trade Commission that a data exclusivity period for follow-on biologics isn't necessary and a seven year compromise offered by President Obama,the pharmaceutical and biotechnology lobbies continue to press Congress for a 12 to 14 year period of data exclusivity in any legislation for follow-on biologics. 

In a well-balanced article in today’s New York Times, Andrew Pollack diligently put forth the arguments against follow-on biologics that innovator companies have been espousing for the past decade. These include: complexity of the manufacturing processes for biotechnology drugs, potential tolerability and safety issues and perhaps, most importantly, an anticipated loss of profits that innovator companies claim “would stifle American innovation” in the life sciences. Until recently, these arguments were successfully used to hinder any substantive debates on follow-on biologics legislation. However, it  has become increasingly apparent that the American healthcare system can no longer sustain the high costs and lack of access to potentially life-saving branded biotechnology drugs. For those of you who may not know, a regulatory approval pathway for biosimilars already exists in Europe and it has been used to approve eight products since its inception in 2004.  Biosimilars are also available in Australia and have been sold for many years in less-regulated markets including India, China and elsewhere. Japan recently approved legislation for approval of biosimilars and Canada is close to finalizing its regulatory guidelines for these products.

American innovator companies recognizing the inevitability of follow-on biologics, no longer oppose legislation for approval of these molecules. Instead, these companies and their supporters have tenaciously latched on to the data exclusivity argument, presumably in a last ditch effort to preserve their profits from multibillion dollar biotechnology drug franchises that may be lost when follow-on biologics legislation is enacted.  And, for the most part, their uncompromising insistence on an excessively long data exclusivity period appears to be taking hold with members of Congress. At last count, there were more Congressional sponsors of legislation favoring a 12 to 14 year data exclusivity period than there was for those who support a 5 year data exclusively period. The five year data exclusivity period was proposed by follow-on biologics proponents because it is identical to the period required for generic versions of small molecule drugs enacted in the Hatch Waxman Act.

I have been following the follow-on biologic debate for the past eight years and, to date, I know of no scientific claims or relevant safety concerns which argue that 12 to 14 years of data exclusivity is warranted for follow-on products.  For example, no untoward safety or tolerability problems have been reported for any of the eight biosimilar products that were approved and sold in Europe for the past three years. Further, European healthcare agencies and physicians haven’t readily embraced biosimilars despite an almost 25%-30% reduction in price. The one exception is Germany (the largest generic market in Europe), where biosimilar versions of erythropoietin (Eprex) have captured 30% of the anemia market. This, in turn, has  forced some innovator companies to lower prices on their branded products.

Based on the European experience, it is likely that follow-on biologics won’t catch on quickly in the US and it may take years for them to erode the market share garnered by innovator brands.  Also, contrary to earlier assertions, it is becoming increasingly apparent that only large, well capitalized companies with sophisticated regulatory, marketing and distribution capabilities will be able to compete in the US follow-on biologics market. To that end, companies like Sandoz (Novartis) and Merck—one of the companies that originally opposed follow-on biologics legislation—will likely dominant the US follow-on biologics market.

Ironically, the biggest losers in the follow-on biologics debate will likely be the innovator companies—but not for the reasons they once cited to prevent regulatory approval of these molecules. By spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying against follow-on biologics legislation—rather than investing to develop their own lower cost, generic versions of blockbuster biotechnology products—innovator companies have unwittingly provided foreign follow-on biologics manufacturers with a competitive advantage when follow-on biologics are finally approved for sale in the US. Companies like Sandoz, Teva and several Indian biosimilar companies— with products already on the market in Europe, India and China—have been developing biosimilar molecules for the past fiver years or more. Their scientific and regulatory experiences with these products suggests that they will be poised to dominate the US market after legislation permitting approval and sale of follow-on biologics is finally completed. Surprisingly, Merck is the only major pharmaceutical company to publicly announce its intention to compete in the follow-on biologics market. The Merck announcement was made last fall—almost three years after Sandoz won European approval for Omnitrope, its first biosimilar product!

Until next time...

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

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

As the Congressional debate over follow-on biologics slogs on, the Obama Administration has finally weighed in and backs 7 years of data exclusivity for follow-on biologics. As you may recall, innovator companies want a 12-14 year data exclusivity period whereas follow-on biologics manufacturers are seeking a 5-year period (which is identical to the data exclusivity period for small molecules generic drugs outlined in the Hatch Waxman Act). What this means—based on the Obama Administration's proposal—is that a follow-on biologic manufacturer must wait seven years from the date of approval for the innovator (branded) drug before the US Food and Drug Administration could consider approval of a follow-on version of the molecule.

It is not surprising that the Obama Administration supports a 7 data exclusivity period--it is, after all, a compromise between the 5 year period sought by the follow-on manufacturers and the 12-14 years that the innovator companies are seeking. And, Mr Obama has repeatedly shown a willingness to compromise when it comes to getting important legislation passed. Hopefully, Congress will take the Obama Administration's compromise to heart and pass follow-on biologics legislation as quickly as possible.

 Until next time...

 Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!

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

A much-anticipated Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report was released on Wednesday that will likely help House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman bolster support for his fledgling follow-on biologics (FOB) bill. For those of you who haven’t been closely following the debate over proposed legislation to create a regulatory framework for approval of FOBs in the US, I provide a brief synopsis.

The Promoting Innovation and Access to Life-Saving Medicines Act (H.R.1427) introduced by US Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA), Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Nathan Deal (R-GA) calls for an abbreviated development pathway (at the discretion of the agency), the possibility of substitution or interchangeability (if the follow-on biologics manufacturer can prove a high degree of structurally similarity and an identical mode of action) and five years of data exclusivity. In contrast, The Pathways for Biosimilar Act (H.R. 1548) introduced by US Representatives Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Joe Barton(R-TX) requires clinical data, rigorous immunogenicity testing and limits on interchangeability and substitution provisions for follow-on biologics. Further, it calls for a minimum of 12 or up to 14 years of data exclusivity for innovator companies—a period during which FDA can’t rely on innovator data to approve follow-on biologics. For example, if a biotechnology drug was approved in 2009, the earliest that FDA could consider and approve an application for a competing follow-on product is 2021.

The FTC report concluded that a 12- to 14-year wait is unnecessary because follow-on biologics will not be offered at the same steep discounts as traditional generic drugs. It also pointed out that no evidence exists that biologic patents will not hold up. The agency estimates follow-on biologics would be sold at discounts ranging from 10 percent to 30 percent. Not surprisingly, the FTC did not recommend a specific number of exclusivity years. This allows legislators to continue to squabble and debate the point ad nauseum, until concessions are made by both innovator and follow-on biologics proponents.

The measure by Eshoo and Barton has garnered 88 co-sponsors, while Waxman and Deal's bill has 11. In the Senate, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee reached a bipartisan compromise on follow-on biologics in 2007 that allowed for 12 years of exclusivity, but that deal seems unlikely. Democrats are trying to address generic firms' concerns that brand companies could make slight changes to their products and start the exclusivity period over again. Some senators introduced a more generic-friendly bill like Waxman's earlier this year.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the data exclusivity provisions in the final legislation will be five years—a period identical to that provided stipulated in the 1984 Hatch Waxman Act, which created the US generic pharmaceutical industry. 

Stay tuned for new updates on this unfolding drama!

Until next time...

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

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

Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly & Co announced today that it will transfer its clinical trial monitoring and data management operations to Quintiles and i3.  About half of the affected 265 Eli Lilly employees will lose their jobs.

Like other pharma companies, Lilly is looking at ways to cut costs. And as everyone knows, the best way to save money is to outsource operations and lay-off full time employees who are expensive because of high salaries and benefits.

Until next time….

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

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