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

The Pharmalot blog reported today that Eli Lilly & Co one of the more progressive big pharma companies to experiment with crowdsourcing and social media to generate new R&D opportunities today announced that it most company employees and executives will not receive base pay increases this year. The company did not announce a freeze in bonuses, however.

In a sign of solidarity with the 99 %, John Lechleiter, PhD Lilly’s outspoken and sometimes controversial CEO, requested that he not receive an increase to his $1.5 million annual salary and incentives. Interesting, as Ed Silverman cogently points out in the Pharmalot post, Lechleiter’s bonus target is 140% of his base salary which put his total compensation for the upcoming year at around $16.4 million!

Last week, the company disclosed that it missed analyst’s stock price estimates and its leading product Zyprexa (antipsychotic) yielded lower than expected sales revenues because of generic competition. Zyprexa sales dropped 44 percent in the fourth-quarter to $749.6 million.

Don’t be surprised if layoffs are next. It may be time for Lilly employees to dust off those CVs and resumes.

Until next time...

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

After completing the $6.8 billion purchase of Pennsylvania-based Cephalon, Teva, the world’s largest generic drug manufacturer announced plans to eliminate about 1,500 US jobs, most of them at Cephalon. Cephalon, which has several marketed products, currently employees about 3,700 US-based persons. This means that Teva will cut Cephalon’s workforce by about 40 percent.

According to a post on today’s Pharmalot blog, a company spokesperson said that the jobs that will be eliminated will be those that overlap with those functions already being performed by Teva. Layoffs at Cephalon were not unexpected as the company had previously identified approximately $500 million in possible savings that it would implement after the deal closed.

If layoffs at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies continue at their current pace, I am not sure that there will be a US life sciences industry in the future.

Until next time...

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

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

Layoffs at big pharma tend to slow during the summer as most people are on vacation and nobody wants to fire folks when the kids are out of school. However, the failing economy has prompted several companies to abandon tradition and fire people during the summer anyway.

According to the Pharmalot Blog, previously announced layoffs at Merck have been accelerated and approximately 8,000 more employees will lose their jobs in early August. While the layoffs were not unexpected, those affected likely thought that they had more time before being shown the door.

In other news, Elan announced that it was laying off 104 employees at its King of Prussia, PA facility. The layoffs resulted from the sale of Élan’s manufacturing facility to Alkermes for $960 million. The acquisition gives Alkermes a chemical formulation and manufacturing business and a stake in two recently approved drugs; Ampyra for multiple sclerosis and Invega Sustenna a treatment for schizophrenia. The layoffs will occur next month and the facility will be closed in September.

Finally, a recent KPMG LLP survey of top executives of US drug makers indicates that M&A activity will continue to increase over the next several years as pharma companies attempt to offset rising generic competition and waning drug revenues. At present, roughly 70 percent of all medications sold in the US are generics. 

Eighty-three percent of the executives believe that their companies will be buyers or sellers in deals over the next two years. Further, just over half believe that it will take more than two years for the US economy to fully recover.

While M&A activity isn’t a bad thing for some companies, it is typically followed by reorganizations and massive job layoffs which are obviously not good for rank and file employees. Consequently, if I worked for a major pharma or biotechnology company, I would definitely make sure that my CV was up-to-date!

Until next time...

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

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

The Pharmalot Blog today reported that a Wall Street Journal article indicated that Pfizer is planning to cut $1.0 billion from its operating budget by 2012. As many of you may recall (especially those who lost their jobs) the world’s largest pharmaceutical company cut 1,100 earlier this year at its research facilities in Groton CT. The new cuts are aimed at reducing Pfizer’s R&D expenses by up to $2.9 billion annually.

The $1.0 billion in cuts is primarily aimed at reducing administrative and management duplications at Pfizer’s headquarters in NYC and worldwide. Other expenses to be trimmed include those related to promotions, travel, entertainment, consultants, print materials and supplies and electronic equipment. While there is no doubt that these cuts will help to control costs, I suspect that substantially more money could be saved if pharma executive salaries and bonuses were also trimmed.

While it is unclear what the additional $1.0 billion in cuts will have on scientists, I suspect it won’t be good. In case you have not noticed by now, Pfizer like many of its competitors are getting out of the R&D business. This means that R&D jobs will continue to dwindle and scientists will continue to struggle to find jobs in a highly competitive job market.

Since Pfizer purchased rival Wyeth Pharmaceuticals in 2009, the company has shed over 20,000 jobs. The reason for the job cuts and massive cost cutting measures at Pfizer is the loss of patent protection in 2012 for its top selling cholesterol medication Lipitor ($10.7 billion in sales) and its ED drug Viagra ($1.9 billion in sales). Last year Pfizer lost patent protection the antidepressant Effexor (peak sales of $3.8 billion) and the Alzheimer’s drug Aricept ($417 million in sales). Also, when mergers take place there is much overlap and duplication of effort that takes several years to sort out.

Don’t be surprised if new Pfizer job cuts are announced late next fall! Now, would be a good time for Pfizer scientists to remove the dust from their CVs; if it is not already too late!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

The world’s largest generic pharmaceutical company Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries LTD today announced that it has agreed to purchase Pennsylvania-based Cephalon, Inc for $6.8 billion. Teva will purchase Cephalon for $81.50 per share, a 12 percent premium to the $73-per share unsolicited offer tendered by Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc, on March 29, 2011. Cephalon’s board of directors rejected Valeant’s offer on April 5, 2011.

While most of Teva’s revenue comes from the sale of prescription generic medications, the company also sells several branded pharmaceutical products including the multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone and the Parkinson’s disease Azilect. Cephalon’s best selling drugs include Provigil for narcolepsy and the cancer drug Treanda. In addition to its marketed products, the Cephalon development pipeline contains potential cancer treatments, a tamper-resistant opioid painkiller, and an asthma treatment. The Cephalon acquisition is a pivotal part of Teva's strategy of growing branded drug revenue to $9 billion by 2015.

Teva currently has about 40,000 employees worldwide while Cephalon employs 4,000 persons. It is not clear what ever the acquisition will have on job layoffs or organizational structure.

Cephalon’s stock price rose $3.25 or 4.2 percent to $80.26 after the deal was announced.

Until next time...

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

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

Yesterday, Novartis, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical company announced that it would double the size of a planned expansion of its R&D headquarters in Cambridge MA and add 200 to 300 new employees.

Not to be outdone, Teva, the world’s largest generic drug manufacturer, today announced that it would create 200 jobs at a distribution facility it plans to open in Northeast Philadelphia.

According to a press release, the $295 million project will create more than 200 jobs within three years and retain more than 200 existing positions. It would appear that cash-rich pharmaceutical and generic drug manufacturers are beginning to realize that investments in infrastructure are likely to be important as the pharmaceutical sector continues to undergo a transformation. Also, it is likely that they are running out of acquisition targets and have to spend some of their excess cash for tax purposes (I know pretty cynical but what can I say) In any event, this is good news for unemployed former pharmaceutical employee and also for the American economy!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

(Check out Philly; it's not as nice as Cambridge but a job is a job!)

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

It was only a matter of time before some company decided to attempt to commercialize a generic version of a therapeutic monoclonal antibody (MAb). The main barrier to entry to the biosimilar MAb market was the patent expiry dates for the first generation of therapeutic MAbs (most were commercialized in the early 1990s and have patent protection until 2018 or longer). The recent health-care overhaul law signed by President Barack Obama earlier this year permits U.S. regulators to approve biosimilar versions of branded biologic drugs and paves the way for commercialization of biosimilar MAbs (and other biologics) in the US.

This past Monday Teva Pharmaceuticals, the world’s largest generic prescription drug manufacturer, announced its plans to commercialize a generic version of Rituxan (rituximab), Roche’s blockbuster MAb used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, leukemia and certain forms of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Rituxan has patent protection in the U.S. until 2018 and in the rest of the world through 2013. According to the announcement, Teva joined worked with the biomanufacturing giant Lonza to produce sufficient quantities of generic Rituxan for clinical development.

Earlier this month Teva began recruiting patients with rheumatoid arthritis for a clinical trial comparing its biosimilar copy, TL011, with the Roche drug, sold outside the U.S. as MabThera. Teva and Lonza are focusing on monoclonal antibodies, and aim to gain regulatory approval for their first product by the end of 2014 said a Lonza spokesman.

Rituxan generated $5.24 billion in sales last year. Indian generic-drug maker Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. began selling a new version of Rituxan in India in 2007 which had $4.2 million in sales in 2009. Interestingly, the size of the biosimilar MAb market is predicted to be much larger than that for therapeutic proteins like Epogen, Neupogen, Avonex and other therapeutically-active proteins.

What will be the next branded MAb-based product to succumb to the biosimilar encroachment? Only time will tell.....

Until next time...

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

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

As reported in the March issue of Pharmaceutical Technology Europe, figures published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) showed that the approval rate for new drugs (branded, generics, biosimilars and orphan) increased between 2007 and 2009; however most of the approvals were for generic drugs not new ones.

According to the published figures there were 58 new drug approvals in 2007, 66 in 2008 and 117 in 2009. However, the number of approvals for branded products decreased during this period; 35 in 2009 compared with 41 in 2008 and 59 in 2007. On the other hand, the approval rate for generics skyrocketed with more than 50 in 2009 as compared with 4 in 2008 and 5 in 2007.

Interestingly, biosimilar products didn’t fare as well as small molecule generic drugs with the number of applications and approvals decreasing during the period. For example, in 2007 10 new biosimilar applications were filed as compared with 3 in 2008 and 1 in 2009. Likewise, the number of approved biosimilar products decreased with 5 in 2007, 6 in 2008 and 0 in 2009. This trend suggests that biosimilars, mainly therapeutic proteins are not faring well in the European market. However, this is likely to change as patents begin to expire for monoclonal antibody-based drugs which are increasingly becoming the new drugs of choice for many indications including oncology, inflammation and metabolic diseases. Nevertheless, there is a growing emphasis and trend on developing generic medications as compared with new ones. Expect this trend to continue as patent expiry for many small and large molecule continues to draw near.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Ed Silverman who runs the outstanding Pharmalot Blog, today posted a 2009 list of the world’s top 20 pharmaceutical companies. The list was compiled by IMS Health and placement was based on revenues generated from 2009 prescription drug sales.  The numbers in parentheses represent the percent change from the previous year.

FYI, the Pfizer-Wyeth and Merck-Schering Plough acquisitions weren’t included whereas the Roche-Genentech acquisition was. Also, it is interesting to note that Teva, the world’s largest generic drug manufacturer came in at number 11and exhibited the greatest increase in sales in 2009. Expect the Israeli drug giant to move into the top ten next year as generic drug sales continue to out pace those of branded products.

1. Pfizer - $41.7 billion - (0.8)
2. Novartis - $36.7 billion - 7.0
3. Sanofi-Aventis - $35.1 billion - (3.3)
4. GlaxoSmithKline - $34.3 billion - (3.4)
5. AstraZeneca - $33.2 billion - (7.8)
6. Roche - $31.3 billion - (8.6)
7. Johnson & Johnson - $26.9 billion - (6.6)
8. Merck - $25.0 billion - (4.1)
9. Eli Lilly - $19.6 billion - (8.3)
10. Abbott - $19.4 billion - (5.5)
11. Teva - $15.7 billion - (12.3)
12. Bayer - $15.4 billion - (3.9)
13. Wyeth - $14.8 billion - (2.3)
14. Amgen - $14.8 billion - (3.1)
15. Boehringer - $14.6 billion - (10.4)
16. Takeda - $14.4 billion - (2.1)
17. Bristol-Myers - $14.2 billion - (5.8)
18. Schering-Plough - $13.1 billion - (4.3)
19. Daiichi Sankyo - $8.5 billion - (3.1)
20. Novo Nordisk - $8.2 billion (11.6)

Hat tip to Pharmalot

Until next time…

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

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

The rising cost of healthcare, increasing drug prices and the restrictive nature of the formularies of many insurers and third party payers is forcing a growing number of Americans to rely almost exclusively on generic prescription drugs. The trouble is that most Americans know very little about generic drugs; mainly because big pharma has done its best to minimize the discussion about generics and continues to portray generic manufacturers as less than reputable purveyors of prescription drugs. Because of this, I think that American ought to begin to understand an industry that increasingly will play a major role in the US healthcare system. So here goes:

1. According to IMS Health, generic drugs accounted for 70 percent of the 2.9 billion prescriptions filled in the US in 2009
2. Generic drugs accounted for only 15 percent of almost $300 billion spent on prescription drugs last year in the US
3. Since 2003, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received 800 new generic drugs applications; up from an average of 330 applications per year in the last decade
4. Five years ago, it took FDA regulators an average of 16.3 months to review and approve generic new drug applications; by 2009 the average time to approval had ballooned to 27.7 months
5. There is a backlog of nearly 2,000 pending generic new drug applications, almost double the backlog at the agency in 2005
6. FDA’s division of generics had a budget of only $41 million in 2009; its budget for 2010 is $511 million
7. Unlike branded pharmaceuticals, companies seeking regulatory approval for new generic drugs don’t pay user fees
8. According to FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg generics saved American consumers almost $750 billion over the last decade.

Based on these facts, it is evident that FDA is seriously under funded, under staffed and overwhelmed by the spike of new generic drug applications in recent years. Interestingly, President Obama’s proposed 2010 budget included $38 million in user fees from generic manufacturers to process new drug applications. Not surprisingly, generic manufacturers are not willing to pay these fees unless the approval time for their products is drastically shortened. To that end, FDA is hiring 50 more reviewers and hopes that personnel increases will eliminate the generic drug application backlog by 2012. 

Dr. Hamburg is also looking to streamline some aspects of the generic drug application review process. For example, she proposed giving higher priority to generic drugs applications for branded drugs whose patent expiry is imminent as compared with applications for drugs that have several more years of patent protection remaining.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is that the agency needs a much larger budget and staff to keep up with the ongoing torrent of new generic drug application. With this in mind, the agency ought to consider reallocating existing resources—rather than wait for budget increases in these financially uncertain times—to process new generic drug applications in a timely fashion. This may be possible because of the annual number of drug applications for new, branded prescription drugs has steadily been decreasing for the past five years.

Hat tip to the New York Times!

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

Previously, the US Congress proposed legislation to create a regulatory approval process to allow the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve generic versions of blockbuster biotechnology drugs known as follow-on biologics (FOBs). While a regulatory pathway exists for approval of generic versions of small molecule drugs (as outlined in the Hatch-Waxman Act) there is no legally-approved regulatory pathway to bring FOBs to market in the US. In contrast with the US, the European Union crafted legislation five years ago that allows biosimilars —the name given to FOBs in Europe—to be approved and sold in EU member states. Since 2004, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), the EU regulatory body, has approved the sale of six biosimilar drugs with many more in the queue awaiting regulatory review.

The debate over FOB legislation started in the US about 10 years ago when patent expiry of many  multi-billion blockbuster biotechnology drugs was fast approaching. From the beginning, many so-called innovator companies (the companies that produced the original branded biotechnology drugs) and the trade associations that represent them on Capital Hill, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Association (PhRMA), aggressively lobbied against any form of FOB legislation. However, late last year, several senators introduced legislation that would permit FDA to approve generic versions of many blockbuster biopharmaceutical products following patent expiry. The proposed legislation stipulated that FOB manufacturers would have to wait 12 years —after patent expiry of previously approved biotechnology drugs—before generic versions of those drugs could be sold in the US. That legislation, which unabashedly favored innovator drug manufacturers, passed the Senate health committee but died without being voted on. The new measure, introduced Thursday, cuts by more than half — to 5 years, from 12 — the time allowed before cheaper versions of biotechnology drugs could compete with the originals. A similar bill was introduced two weeks ago in the House by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

While the proposed reduction in the so-called “FOB waiting period” is commendable, I don’t think that any waiting period is necessary before FOBs can be sold in the US. It is difficult to understand why innovator companies require an additional patent protection—beyond the 20 years already afforded to them under US patent law—to continue to sell their blockbuster products! To that end, Jeff Joseph, a spokesman for the BIO said that the FOB waiting period reduction, “.... Would jeopardize patient safety and undermine our ability to develop future cures and therapies.” I believe that the FOB waiting period being championed by innovators companies is nothing more a thinly veiled attempt by them to continue to maintain monopolistic control over lucrative multibillion dollar biopharmaceutical drug franchises. Biotech executives have vowed to vigorously fight the new legislation, saying it could result in unsafe medicines, fewer cures and fewer jobs in biotechnology centers like Boston, California and elsewhere. Interestingly, similar arguments were put forward by the pharmaceutical industry before the Hatch-Waxman act was passed by Congress in 1984..

Despite the claims that FOBs will stifle innovation and may jeopardize the safety of Americans, the current high costs and lack of access to affordable healthcare will almost certainly leave Congress no choice but to pass legislation that permits the marketing and sale of FOBs in the US. While FOB legislation is a likely fait accompli, US drug manufacturers remain steadfastly opposed to any FOB legislation. I believe that innovator company opposition to FOB legislation is really a “red herring” that serves to detract attention away from the real issue that the drug industry is deathly afraid of federal regulation of drug prices. Interestingly, the US is one of the only countries in the world where drug prices are not regulated or controlled by the government. This permits drug manufacturers to set prices based exclusively on “what price the US market will bear.” In other words, they can charge as much as they want for their drugs, as long as third party payors, insurance companies and Medicare and Medicaid agree to continue to cover the costs of the drugs that they manufacture (it should come as no surprise to anyone that the American pharmaceutical and biotechnology markets are the largest and most financially lucrative in the world).

I have no doubt that innovator companies will continue to fight hard and as long as possible prevent adoption of legislation regulating the approval of FOBs. After all, there are huge sums of money and corporate profits at stake. Like it or not, FOBs will ultimately be sold in the US—the current costs of drug and healthcare are simply too high to sustain. Despite a fierce decade-long struggle, most American drug makers will privately concede that sale of FOBs in the US is inevitable. Nevertheless, innovator companies will likely not publicly endorse FOB legislation until the US government provides them with assurances that it will not seek to regulate American drug prices for the foreseeable future.

Until next time...

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

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

News Day reported today that Wegmans Food Markets, a grocer with 72 locations in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and Maryland is giving away “free generic antibiotics” for customers (with a prescription). Wegmans joins a growing list of supermarkets pharmacies including Giant Food and Publix that are giving free generic antibiotics to its customers.

I first learned about the “free generic antibiotic give away offers” several weeks ago after reading a post on the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Health Blog. I took the WSJ health blog to task for posting the story without editorial comment on the potentially dangerous practice of “hawking free antibiotics” to drive business at regional and nationwide grocery store pharmacies. Luckily, in today’s WSJ Health Blog post about the Wegmans program, the author (Sarah Rubenstein) did suggest that the practice may lead to unnecessary promotional  use of antibiotics.

As you all should know by now, we are in the midst of bacterial antibiotic-resistance epidemic. People are beginning to regularly die from bacterial infections that were easily treatable a decade ago. Ironically, we are slowly approaching the morbidity and mortality rates for bacterial infections that previously existed in the pre-penicillin era. Moreover, there are no new, orally bioavailable, broad spectrum antibiotics on the horizon. A lack of new antibiotics coupled with rapidly emerging resistance to extant ones is wreaking havoc on the healthcare system in both community and hospital settings.

The “free generic antibiotics” advertising and marketing programs concocted by Giant, Publix and Wegman’s are egregious examples of how a lack of or unwillingness to understand science poses a serious public health threat to all Americans. I have no doubt that the marketers who devised the give away programs have nary a clue about the relationship between antibiotic use and the emergence of antibiotic resistance strains of bacteria. Further, while physicians may be aware of increasing rates of antibiotic resistance, many are reluctant to not prescribe antibiotics to patients who request them. After all, these physicians are running a business and if they don’t write the script, the patient will take his/her business elsewhere. The potential public health implication of these free antibiotic programs begs the question: Why not give away generic ace inhibitors, generic statins or other generic medications whose profits margins are also negligible but don’t carry any public health risks?

Put simply, the promise of free generic antibiotics is a marketing strategy that is in my opinion, reckless, dangerous and may have serious public health implications in the future. Make no mistake about it, I am a capitalist but not when profits are placed before human lives.

Hat tip to the WSJ Health Blog

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try antibiotic drug discovery—we need new ones)

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

Pfizer may announce new job cuts by the end of next month as the company tries to curb spending before cheaper generic versions of its top- selling drug Lipitor flood the market in 2010. The cuts will likely take place in sales and marketing—Pfizer has cut more than 14, 000 jobs since 2007. 

Aren’t you glad that you didn’t take me up on that land deal in Florida?

Until next time…

Good Luck and Hang On!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Wyeth announced yesterday that it is introducing a generic version of its blockbuster heartburn medication Protonix. The company is embroiled in nasty patent litigation with Israel-based Teva, one of the world’s largest generic drug manufacturers. The lawsuit, filed by Wyeth, claims that TEVA violated a violation of Protonix's patent which is set to expire in 2010. Teva introduced a generic version of the drug in December, which caused Protonix's sales to plummet, but then agreed to temporarily halt selling its rival product, known as pantoprazole, as the two companies engaged in settlement talks.

Protonix, one of Wyeth's top sellers, posted $1.45 billion of sales in the first nine months of 2007. Wyeth yesterday said its generic version would be distributed by Prasco Laboratories, a closely held Cincinnati company. A Teva spokeswoman declined to comment on what Wyeth's generic version means for settlement talks or whether Teva will resume sales of its own generic.

A steep drop in Protonix sales, which would be expected in the face of generic competition, would deliver yet another blow to Wyeth, which has tried and failed to win approval for some of its new medications including Pristiq for menopause symptoms and bazedoxifene for osteoporosis. Wyeth’s unprecedented move of a introducing a generic version of Protonix before patent expiry indicates how reliant the company is on sales of its blockbuster product.

If a court finds that Teva violated the Wyeth patent, Teva may have to pay triple damages awarded to the patent holder.

Until next time…

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

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