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

 

Beginning in 2009, Eli Lilly and Merck will post in online databases all payments made to doctors for speaking and consulting services. According to an article in today’s New York Times, the postings will “likely include” the names of the doctors, or will provide some other identifying information about them, along with the reason for the payments.

The lack of disclosure by physicians about their relationships with drug and medical devices companies have  plagued medical journals and continuing medical education programs for many years. For those of you who may not know commercial and business relationships (including consulting and speaker fees) are common between leading medical thought leaders and drug companies. In the last two decades alone, drug and device makers have made payments to tens of thousands of doctors and researchers in all medical specialties and areas of research. Critics of these practices (including the US Congress) are worried that this money could taint doctors’ research plans or clinical judgment when it comes to new drug/device approval. These concerns have prompted government agencies, medical journals and universities to look more closely at the deals. Many medical journals and granting agencies now require that physicians disclose all of their relationships to drug and device companies before their manuscripts and grants are reviewed.

Lilly and Merck’s decision to publicly disclose which physicians are on their payrolls is a step in the right direction. Full disclose and more transparency about the relationships between physicians and drug/devices makers is an important first step to limit subjectivity and conflict of interest issues when it comes to new drug/device approvals.

Until next time….

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

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

Each year Fortune publishes a list of the top 100 companies that it believes are the best to work for. A quick perusal of the 2008 list reveals that only two drug companies cracked the top 100 this year. Genentech was ranked number 3 (second place in 2007) and Astra Zeneca finished a distant 83rd. The only other big pharma company to ever make the list was Eli Lilly in 2006 which came in at number 52. I guess that in general, big pharma companies aren’t great places to work?

As Ed Silverman at Pharmalot points out, “Amgen wins the award for taking the biggest dive. The biotech ranked #39 in 2006 and #40 in 2007, but this year doesn’t rank at all.” I suspect that Amgen’s hasty exit from the list has a lot to with large job layoffs, a grossly over paid CEO, a flagging stock price and a weak pipeline. One company that I think ought to be on this year’s list is Massachusetts-based Genzyme which has a reputation for having outstanding employee development and retention programs. It made the list in 2006 (no. 51) and 2007 (no.43) but was conspicuously absent this year. Maybe things have changed at Genzyme?

Until next time

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try Genentech, houses are currently cheap in the Bay area)!!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Eli Lilly & Co. announced today that it will eliminate 500 jobs at its manufacturing facility in Indianapolis, IN. The cuts will affect sites that manufacture active pharmaceutical ingredients for Lilly’s insulin products Humalog® and Humulin® and its osteoporosis medicine Forteo®.

Lilly is offering incentive packages for those employees who voluntarily leave the company. The company has already reduced its global headcount by twelve percent or about 5,500 people since 2004.

Times are tough and getting tougher each day in pharma land. Buckle up–its going to be a rough ride for jobseekers in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (avoid Indianapolis, who wants to be a Hoosier anyway?)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cambridge, MA-based Alkermes announced today that it is restructuring its operations following the termination by Eli Lilly and Company of its inhalable AIR Insulin program (Alkermes manufactured the inhaler delivery device). The company is reducing its workforce by approximately 150 employees and closing its AIR commercial manufacturing facility in Chelsea, MA. The company is taking these actions based on its current expectations of the financial impact of Lilly's termination of the AIR Insulin program.

The job cuts, effective this week, represent almost 18% of Alkermes’ total workforce. Employees affected by the restructuring will be eligible for a severance package that includes severance pay, continuation of benefits and outplacement services. The company expects cost savings from the restructuring in the range of $15 million to $20 million in fiscal 2009.

In other news from across the pond, the trade group, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), reported today that the UK pharmaceutical industry lost about 8.000 pharmaceutical jobs or about 10% of its workforce over the past three years. The ABPI asserts that there is a direct link between job cuts and changes to the British government’s pricing mechanisms for medicines. A spokesperson for the group said “Every time a new PPRS (Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme) comes into force there is a decline in the number of jobs”. Not surprisingly, the group is urging the government to not make any changes in the PPRS.

The UK pharmaceutical workforce has taken a number of big hits of late– Pfizer recently closed a manufacturing plant in Kent, while British drug makers AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline both announced substantial global job cuts many of which were located in Britain.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As the cost of prescription drugs continues to spiral upward, the affordability and accessibility to prescription drugs and healthcare will likely be fiercely debated and may influence the outcome of the presidential election next November. Despite growing public concern over the cost of prescription drugs in the US, Eli Lilly has vowed to fight federal legislation that will allow Americans to import lower-priced prescription drugs from Canada, Japan, Australia and many European nations. Lilly spokespeople and their lobbyists in Washington DC argue that the policy would put consumers at huge risk of consuming dangerous and unsafe counterfeit drugs. Big pharma has been using the drug safety argument for the past decade or so to stifle drug importation legislation. That said, blocking prescription drug importation legislation has very little to do with drug safety and everything to do with profit margins and corporate stock prices.

The stakes of prescription drug importation are high for drug makers. In contrast with the US, most other countries keep drug prices low through government distribution programs and strict price controls. Because the US government does not control prescription drug prices, American typically pay two-thirds more than Canadians, 80% more than Germans and 100 per cent more than French residents for identical prescription drugs. Lilly and other big pharma companies contend that price controls for prescription drugs stifle innovation and competition (tell that to the European and Japanese drug companies). Currently, according to government and industry surveillance data only a tiny fraction of counterfeit drugs (about 5 per cent) actually enter the US market. But Lilly and other pharmaceutical companies argue that there could be enormous increases in the number of counterfeit drugs that enter the US annually if Congress relaxes the federal ban on imported prescription drugs.

Pharma’s counterfeit drug argument is a convenient scare tactic that it has been using to lobby against relaxing current drug importation legislation. What the drug makers don’t tell you is that they routinely import and sell drugs in America that are manufactured in foreign production facilities. Further, many of drugs that are sold in Canada, Europe, Japan and Australia are manufactured in the same production facilities that supply drugs that are sold in the US. This begs the question —if drugs are manufactured in the same foreign production facilities and one lot is sold in the US and the other in Canada, would American consumers really be at a greater risk if they bought a Company’s drug in Canada or the US? The answer to the question is a resounding NO–unless you believe that the Canadian Regulatory Agency is less competent at monitoring and approving drugs than the US FDA The real story is this–.counterfeiters stand to make much more money selling bogus prescription drugs in the US than in other countries because there are no price controls in the US (which means much larger profit margins for the counterfeiters–duh!)

Let me propose a solution to the prescription drug counterfeiting that is plaguing and threatening the safety of American–reduce the price of American prescription drugs to prices that are consistent with prescription drug prices in the rest of the world. This would provide greater access of prescription drugs to all Americans and reduce the need for some Americans to purchase prescription drugs from dubious sources because they can’t afford to buy them at their local pharmacies. Further, price controls would certainly reduce the incidence of counterfeit drugs in American because counterfeiters would no longer be able to command high prices for their products which, in turn, would seriously cut into their profit margins.

Despite the logic and simplicity of my proposal, don’t expect there to be any changes in prescription drug importation policies any time soon! Profits not drug safety or open access to life-saving drugs is what drives big pharma-this is American after all!!!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try Indiana) !!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Danish drug maker Novo Nordisk announced today that it was halting further clinical development of its inhalable insulin product called AERx. AERx was in Phase 3 clinical testing as a short-term diabetes treatment. In a press release the company stated that it was halting development of its inhaled insulin compound because the drug was "unlikely to offer significant clinical or convenience benefits" versus current diabetes treatments.” AERx joins Exubera (Nektar Therapeutics/ Pfizer) on the inhalable insulin scrap heap. This leavesEli Lilly and Alkermes’ IR insulin system as the only inhalable short-acting diabetes treatment in Phase 3 clinical development.

Interestingly, Novo didn't say that it was giving up on developing inhalable insulins— only that it was halting its current late-stage AERx program. The company did announce that it plans to pursue a Glucagon_Like Protein (GLP-1) inhalable diabetes treatment which is similar to a product being developed by California-based MannKind. Its product in Phase 1 clinical testing. Unlike Nektar, which partnered with Pfizer to develop Exubera, MannKind, a small startup, is developing its inhalable insulin product alone. Novo also disclosed plans to develop a longer-acting injectable form of insulin which would eliminate the need for daily injections by patients with diabetes.

In theory, inhalable insulins make sense—many people hate daily injections. That said, inhalable insulins may create other problems that obviate their usefulness as alternatives to daily insulin injections-just ask Pfizer and Nektar about that!

Until next time….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As many of you know, the pharmaceutical industry has been trending downward for the past year or so. Weak pipelines, uncontrolled corporate expansion and soaring drug prices have been offered to explain the recent down turn. However, the real back story to the downturn is the loss of  future revenues that is expected to occur starting in 2010 when many current blockbuster pharmaceutical products, e.g., Lipitor (Pfizer), Plavix (Sanofi Aventis), Avandia (GlaxoSmithKline), Zyprexa (Lilly), and others lose patent protection.

The loss of patent protection of branded blockbuster products is almost always accompanied by the development and subsequent, regulatory approval of lower cost, generic versions of the drugs. The Hatch Waxman Act permits generic manufacturers to begin to develop generic versions of branded products five years prior to patent expiry. This allows generic manufacturers to develop and gain regulatory approval of their products well in advance of a patent expiry date. Further, generic manufacturers usually launch their products (and flood the market) with generic versions of a branded product on the same day that its patent lapses. To induce and hasten generic development, Hatch Waxman grants market exclusivity for 180-days (6 month) to the first company that gains US regulatory approval for a generic version of a branded product that has lost patent protection.

Revenue generation and a company’s market share of branded drug products generally fall precipitously following introduction of less costly, generic versions of the drugs. From a financial standpoint, this is not surprising—why would anybody chose to pay more for a branded product when there is a cheaper and therapeutically efficacious generic alternative available?  In the past, most pharmaceutical companies chose to neglect (and ultimately abandon) blockbuster products after generic versions were introduced.  Many companies chose this strategy because, in the past, there was always another blockbuster in the pipeline that would replace the lost revenues caused by generic competition.

Unfortunately, as we all know, the days of the billon-dollar-a year blockbuster drug are long gone! This realization has caused many pharmaceutical companies to rethink their business strategies when a blockbuster drugs lose patent expiry. Many pharmaceutical companies are experimenting with a relatively new kind of product called an authorized generic–a copycat version of a company’s branded drug that is sold through a licensing agreement between the innovator company and a generic-drug manufacturer. This type of arrangement allows the innovator company to hold on to a larger share of a revenue stream from the drug once it loses patent protection and it falls prey to generic manufacturers.

Authorized generics have always made sense to me–who knows how to manufacture, market and distribute a drug better than the company that originally created it? Further, why would a company choose to give up on a revenue stream simply because a product can no longer generate billions each year due to generic encroachment– wouldn’t hundreds or even tens of millions suffice? Much to my surprise, late last week, Merck & Co announced that it had inked a deal for an authorized generic form of its blockbuster osteoporosis drug  Fosamax after the US patent expires on February 6. Merck did not disclose the terms of the deal or the identity of it generic manufacturing partner.

Industry analysts have suggested that cheaper generics will not only batter sales of Merck’s Fosomax but could also hurt rival Actonel (Proctor & Gamble Co/Sanofi-Aventis) and Boniva (Roche/GalxoSmithKline). Generic manufacturers.  Barr Laboratories and TEVA are expected to launch their own generic versions on February 6 and share the 180-day market exclusivity for their respective products.

Merck, once a champion of the old pharma blockbuster model, is slowing emerging as an industry innovator. The company’s recent decision to authorize a generic version of one of its former blockbuster drugs may be a harbinger of things to come in the pharmaceutical industry. That said, I don’t understand why big biotechnology companies like Amgen, Biogen/IDEC and Genentech are unwilling to consider the authorized generic model to stave off generic competition for blockbuster biotechnology products like EPO, Avonex and Rituxan. Whether these companies like it or not, I believe that biogenerics aka follow-on biologics will be a reality in the US in the next five years. Maybe Amgen can bolster is rapidly falling stock price by inking an authorized generic deal for EPO—rather than spending hundreds of millions on patent litigation—“whadda ya think?”

Until next time…

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The New York times reported today that Britain’s Serious Fraud Office has demanded documents from GlaxoSmithKline, Astra Zeneca and a British affiliate of Eli Lilly & Company in connections with allegations that the companies paid bribes to secure lucrative drug contracts in Iraq while Saddam Hussein was in power. The 3 companies are accused of violating the United Nations’ oil-for-food program that was instituted in post war Iraq in the 1990s.

A report from the fraud office in 2005 accused some 2,200 companies from 40 countries of colluding with the Hussein regime to cheat the UN program out of about $1.8 billion. As I have stated time and time again, drug companies are no different than other companies–profits and stock prices always come before ethics, morality and sometimes the law!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A sharp drop in sales of its blockbuster diabetes medication Avandia has forced GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to embark on a major cost cutting campaign that includes job cuts. It is not clear where the cuts will take place or how many jobs will be lost. The company said it would close some of its manufacturing plants, including a plant in Puerto Rico which employs around 900 workers and has been a target of regulatory scrutiny because of ongoing quality control issues.

Although this is the first official public announcement of layoffs at GSK, my inside sources tell me that several hundred employees have already lost their jobs at GSK’s Collegeville, PA facility.

GSK’s announcement coupled with a sharp drop in Amgen’s third quarter profits and Lilly’s problems with clinical development of prasugrel (its highly anticipated anti-clotting drug) indicate that the road will be rather bumpy for the biopharmaceutical sector in the near future.

Until next time…

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks