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

Not a day goes by without some report about pharma’s ongoing problems with illegal drug promotions, class action suits against blockbuster medications or civil or criminal settlements with state and federal governments. A quick perusal of articles posted to the Pharmalot Blog in November alone revealed no fewer than eight big pharma companies including Lilly, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis and Amgen that were involved in some sort of legal action regarding inappropriate marketing claims or failure to disclose potential side effects of blockbuster drugs. To make matters worse, a larger than usual number of pharma companies have experienced manufacturing problems that have resulted in drug recalls or shortages. This list includes companies such as Genzyme, Baxter, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline and most recently Boehringer Ingelheim. While chronic legal and manufacturing problems are extremely troubling (some assert it is just the cost of doing “business”), I believe that the amount of money spent lobbying Congress for legislation favorable to the industry is even more egregious.

According to a recent post on Knowledge Ecology International, the pharma industry has so far spent $115,571,832 on lobbying in 2011 (this number is sure to go higher by the end of this fiscal year). Interestingly, the biggest year for pharmaceutical industry lobbying was in 2009—a year after the Affordable Health Care Bill was passed—with totals in excess of $186,000,000. Just think about how many jobs could have been saved if companies reinvested the money into R&D rather than greasing the palms of lobbyists to induce Congress to pass laws to continue to get favorable tax rates, improve ROI and bolster the stock prices of those companies! To wit, Newt Gingrich, a Republican Presidential candidate and Former Speaker of the House has been accused of lobbying former congressional colleagues to vote for a Medicare drug subsidy while he was a paid consultant to AstraZeneca. Gingrich vehemently denies these allegations; probably because he realizes that most Americans don’t like big pharma and may vote against him if the claims are proven to be true and he wins the Republican presidential nomination.

Not withstanding the legal issues and unnecessary lobbying, what is really hurting the pharmaceutical industry is its lack of communication and transparency with patients and its unfailing practice of putting profits before healthcare. While every big pharma company I know always talks about fulfilling unmet medical needs, meeting those needs always comes at great costs (literally) to patients. Sadly, many patients can no longer afford the costs of potentially lifesaving medicines and treatments. Unless pharma begins to change the way it presents itself to the American public, it will continue to suffer the lost of confidence and trust of the American people. And, if the industry is unable to regain the public’s trust, its inability  will ultimately result in legislation that allows the US government to control drug prices: something that exists in most other countries in the world and big pharma has been desperately trying to prevent for the past 50 years!

Until next time...

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

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

Earlier this week Roche Holding AG announced that it would pay $230 million to acquire the San Diego, CA-based biopharmaceutical company Anadys. The reason for the acquisition is to bolster Roche’s standing in the hepatitis C market which is projected to grow to as much as $15 billion annually by 2019.

Anadys has a fairly large experimental pipeline of hepatitis C drugs, the most advanced candidate being setrobuivr that is being clinically tested in combination with the generic antiviral drug ribavirin and Pegasys (PEGylated α-interferon) as a hepatitis C treatment.

The Anadys deal comes on the heels of an agreement last week between Roche and Merck & Co to jointly market hepatitis C treatments in the US. Merck recently won approval last May for Victrelis (boceprevir) the first new hepatitis C treatment in over a decade. Also, late last month Vertex Pharmaceuticals received approval for a new hepatitis C drug called Incivek (telaprevir). Anadys is also conducting early clinical trials on ANA773 as a possible treatment for hepatitis C infection, cancer and other chronic diseases.

In other news, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is rumored to be contemplating purchasing Maryland-based Human Genome Sciences (HGS), which recently received US approval for Benlysta a novel monoclonal antibody treatment for the autoimmune disease systemic lupus erythematous. 

Benlysta was the first new drug to be approved to treat lupus in over 50 years. GSK is HGS’s commercialization partner for Benlysta which is expected to be a blockbuster drug. The reason for the takeover rumors is likely HGS’s stock price which has fallen from 52-week high of $30 to its current value of $15 per share. 

Until next time...

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

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

The loss of patent protection and a decline in revenues for a number of blockbuster brand name antibiotics has caused many big pharmaceutical companies to exit the antibacterial drug discovery market. The three remaining big pharma companies still actively engaged in antibacterial research are GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Novartis (all European owned companies).

A new report by UK-based Datamonitor entitled “Forecast Insight: Antibacterials” predicts that antibiotic sales revenues will decline from $19.6 billion in 2009 to about $16.4 billion in 2019. Not surprisingly, the report blames the projected decline on generic competition and the lack of new antibiotic launches over the past 10 years.

At present, the top seven antibiotic markets in the world include the US, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. According to Datamonitor’s analyses, total sales in these markets have fallen by about 1.6 percent annually since 2005 and will continue to decline by almost 2.0 percent a year through 2019. In 2009, three antibiotics had sales of about or more than $1.0 billion; Johnson & Johnson’s Levaquin (market leader), and Pfizer’s Zosyn, and Zyvox. Interestingly, Pfizer recently decided to shut down its US-based antibacterial drug discovery program and move it to China and Johnson & Johnson recently announced that it was getting out of the antibiotic discovery business. 

Big pharma’s decision to abandon antibiotic research could not have come at a worse time. The incidence of antibiotic resistance among both Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria is rising at unprecedented rates. And while safe and effective treatments for Gram positive infections including MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) still exist, the number of treatment options to treat Gram negative infections caused by Acinetobacter spp, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and enteric bacteria is severely limited. The recent description and rapid spread of a beta-lactamase enzyme called NDM-1 that inactivates the antibiotic carbapenem—the last safe and effective antibiotic to universally treat infections caused by Gram negative bacteria —is extremely troubling and worrisome.

While much of the focus over the last decade was on MRSA, infections caused by untreatable, multiple drug resistant Gram negative bacteria will pose the greatest public health threat over the next 10 years. Unfortunately, it is much harder to develop new antibiotic treatments for Gram negative infections as compared with ones caused by Gram positive bacteria. Further, at present, most of the companies that remain in the antibiotic space continue to focus on new treatment for MRSA and related bacteria. Consequently, new treatments for Gram negative infections may be more than a decade away!

Finally, like MRSA, most infections caused by multiple drug resistant Gram negative bacteria are nosocomial in nature (although the incidence of community acquired infections is also on the rise). This means that the most likely place to become infected with these bacteria is institutionalized healthcare settings including hospitals and nursing homes.

In the past, we have relied on pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to discover new antibiotic treatments. The decision of many of these companies to leave the antibacterial space for purely financial reasons is unfortunate and regrettable. However, the growing incidence of antibiotic resistance among both Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria suggests that new antibiotics are necessary and that alternate approaches to new antibiotic drug discovery must be implemented. Whether this is through public/private partnerships or strictly through government programs is irrelevant. The bottom line is that we need new antibiotics; and if they are not discovered soon, many patients will die from previously treatable bacterial infections!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (start an antibiotic drug discovery company)

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

Ask any pharmaceutical industry pundits about the “next big thing” in life sciences R&D and most will invariably say neuroscience indications like Alzheimer's, Parkinson Disease and the like. Curiously, despite these prognostications, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) today announced that it would lay off 50 employees involved in neuroscience R &D.

The affected workers, all of whom are scientists working on late stage clinical development at various sites throughout the US, were first notified about the layoff on Valentine’s Day (nice gift). Interestingly, a GSK spokesperson was quick to point out that other neuroscience employees including marketing and sales would not be affected by the layoffs. Hm mm, I always thought you needed scientists to discover the drugs that will ultimately be marketed and sold by a company? In any event, no GSK operations outside of the US were affected by this round of layoffs.

The reason why the layoffs only affected clinical scientists is because GSK scaled back its investment into early stage research. And, according to the GSK spokesperson this means that “there’s not as much coming through that needs later stage clinical trials.” Also, last year, after GSK released fiscal 2009 results, the company announced it would “cease discovery research in selected neuroscience areas, including depression and pain.” I guess most of the layed off scientists worked on depression and pain (two emotions that layed off workers frequently suffer).

In case you haven’t noticed (because you spend too much time in the lab and on Facebook), most major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have slashed their investments into new drug discovery and development. This means that the demand for R&D scientists (in the US anyway) is much lower than ever before. Consequently, as I have stated numerous times in the past, now may be the time for graduate students and postdocs considering industrial R&D careers to re-evaluate their plans (unless R&D careers in emerging markets like Brazil, Russia, India and China are attractive).

Until next time ....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

The era of blockbuster drugs was officially declared over several years ago by many pharmaceutical analysts and pundits. Nevertheless, as the old adage goes “it’s difficult to treat old dogs’ new tricks!” After all, the blockbuster drug model has been the major driver of pharmaceutical and biotechnology markets for close to 50 years. Consequently, big pharma and biotech companies haven’t truly abandoned the possibility of finding potential new blockbusters. And, it appears that the blockbuster heir apparent may be drugs to treat rare aka orphan disease indications. 

At first blush, this strategy may not make a lot of sense. This is because rare diseases afflict only small numbers of patients (at least in the US and other Western nations). However, what may be considered a rare disease in Europe or the US may actually be less rare in countries with large populations like China and India. Further, while current rare diseases patient populations may be small, the cost of the drugs developed to treat them is extremely high. In some instances, the annual cost per patient can exceed several hundred thousand dollars. If you do the math, it becomes apparent that developing rare disease treatments or so-called niche busters can actually be very big business. 

The rare diseases business model has been perfected by Genzyme and many big pharma companies are trying to emulate it. To that end, big pharma’s push into rare diseases continues to gather momentum. So far this year Sanofi-Aventis has made an $18.5bn move for Genzyme, while Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline have both created rare disease business units.

According to Glaxo’s estimates, 7,000 rare diseases have been identified and collectively this affects 6-8% of the world’s population; in the US and Europe alone rare diseases affect 25 million people. In addition mortality rates are very high, often at a very young age, and less than 10% of these diseases are treated with approved drugs.

To date, over 7,000 rare diseases have been identified. Companies involved in the new rare diseases treatment race have whittled the list down to roughly 200-250 disorders that represent a clear path for clinical, regulatory and commercial success. The criteria used to select these indications include identifying rare disorders with: 1) a relatively high prevalence rate, 20 an early age of onset, 3) a large unmet medical need and 3) a known molecular target. The indications have been broadly classified into four distinct groups:  metabolic disorders, autoimmune/inflammation, central nervous system and blood disorders.

While Genzyme identified, developed and commercialized its rare diseases treatments, it is likely that big pharma companies like Pfizer, Glaxo, and Merck will either in-license potential new treatments or acquire companies with platform technologies or drugs in various stages of clinical development. For example, Merck’s acquisition of Glycofi several years ago has allowed the company to enter into the rare diseases and biosimilar markets.

One of the major problems with extant rare diseases treatment is their excessive and oppressive costs. One can only hope that the increased competition in the rare diseases space will help to lower drug prices and make them more affordable for patients who suffer from these devastating and life-threatening disorders.

For more insights in to the orphan drug disease market, check out an article that I wrote for Life Science Leader this month

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

For those of you who can’t tear yourselves away from the ongoing, nail-biting Sanofi Aventis-Genzyme saga, the head of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) R&D, Moncef Slaoui told a French newspaper that GSK will not “step in as a rival bidder for the US biotech Genzyme.”

Slaoui made his remarks at the christenings of a GSK research center in France. “An offer by GlaxoSmithKline for Genzyme does not make sense. It is too expensive” he said. Also, GSK already has a foothold in the orphan disease market through its partnership with JCR Pharmaceuticals. 

As negotiations between Sanofi and Genzyme began to stall over the $69 per share offer tendered by Sanofi, some analysts had predicted that a so-called white knight may enter the bidding war to drive the stock share price higher to the $75 per share wanted by Genzyme.

Today’s announcement by GSK likely produced a collective sigh of relief from Sanofi shareholders. Personally, I think Sanofi would be crazy to let this one get away; the deal is exactly what Sanofi needs to begin to compete in the lucrative biologics market. Until now, Sanofi’s focus has been almost exclusively on small molecule development.

Until next time..

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

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

Earlier this month, Merck BioVentures, the company’s new division focused on developing follow-on biologics aka biosimilars announced that it was scuttling plans to develop MK-2578, a PEGylated version of erythropoietin (EPO); its first follow-on biologics candidate (someone should have mentioned to Merck that PEG-EPO is NOT a follow-on product but actually a NME that would require full regulatory approval).  In yet another setback, this past week the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) postponed a decision to broaden usage of its Gardasil human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to women between the ages of 27 and 45.

The company had submitted new data to agency and had hoped to hear by the end of June about the new indication for Gardasil; FDA will likely delay a response until the end of 2010. Gardasil is already approved to protect against some strains of the human papillomavirus, which can lead to cervical cancer, in girls and women ages 9 to 26. It is also approved to prevent genital warts in males of the same age. Merck has aggressively been trying to expand the indications for the vaccine to bolster sales. Gardasil revenue in 2009 was $1.1 billion, down from $1.4 billion in 2008 and $1.48 billion in 2007.

Decreasing sales have been attributed to high cost of the vaccine and concerns over side effects after vaccination. Also, some parents’ worry that Gardasil vaccination may suggest to teenagers that premarital sex is okay. Interestingly, while cervical cancer remains a risk among HPV-infected girls and women, a recent study found that only 34 percent of teenage girls ages 13 to 17 received Merck’s Gardasil human papillomavirus vaccine. Finally, sales of Cervarix, a competing HPV vaccine developed by GlaxoSmithKline, are beginning to cut into Gardasil market share.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

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

Astra Zeneca announced today that it has agreed to market 18 of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.’s branded generic drugs in 9 emerging markets, marking the U.K. drugmaker’s first generic-drug partnership.

Unlike some its competitors, Astra Zeneca is very vulnerable to generic competition as many of its best selling products such as Nexium for ulcers, the antipsychotic Seroquel and Crestor for cholesterol. are near patent expiry. Industry analysts expect the company to lose as much as 25% of its sales revenue to generic encroachment by 2014.

The company joins a growing list of big pharma companies including Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis and GlaxoSmithKline that view generics as a viable replacement for revenues lost to generic competition for it top selling brands.

Last year, GlaxoSmithKline entered into joint ventures with the generic manufacturers Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (India) and Aspen Pharmacare Ltd (South Africa). Also, the company paid $246.5 million for Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Pakistan and Egypt drug units and acquired UCB’s drug portfolio in Africa, the Middle East, Asia Pacific and Latin America for $702 million; clearing signaling its intention to more aggressively pursue emerging global markets.

Likewise, Sanofi-Aventis bought Zentiva NV of the Czech Republic, Helvepharm AG of Switzerland, Medley SA of Brazil and Laboratorios Kendrick SA of Mexico to bolster its branded generics portfolio. The company also took control of the Indian vaccine and biologics manufacturer Shantha Biotechnics which suggest that Sanofi may be looking to biotech in the future.

Finally, Pfizer continues its pursuit of the financially-troubled German, generics giant Ratiopharm. Actavis of Iceland and the Israeli generics manufacturer Teva have also put in bids to purchase Ratiopharm. However, there are signs that Ratiopharm's board would prefer to be purchased by Pfizer rather than Teva or Actavis.

Look for other big pharma companies to enter into deals with or purchase branded or conventional generics manufacturers.

Until next time...

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

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

Earlier this week, an article appeared in the NY Times Business section heralding the entry of several large pharmaceutical companies into the branded generics industry. For those of you who may not know, generic drugs are lower cost versions of brand name prescription drugs that have lost patent protection. Generic prescription drugs are usually much cheaper than their brand name counterparts but generally deliver the same therapeutic effects as the branded product. In most cases, so-called “commodity generic drugs” are not branded and sold to consumers by their chemical names. A good example of a commodity generic drug is the anti-depressant sertraline HCl; which Pfizer sells under the brand name Zoloft. Pfizer still manufactures and sells Zoloft but Zoloft lost patent protection several years ago and a generic version of the active ingredient, sertraline HCl, is now available to consumers. Because sertraline HCl is much cheaper than Zoloft, pharmacists almost always substitute prescriptions for Zoloft with sertraline HCl. This is perfectly acceptable because sertraline HCl was approved by the US Food and Drug administration with an AB rating which means that sertraline HCl is biologically equivalent to Zoloft.

Unlike commoditized (no-name) generics, branded generics are off-patent prescription drugs that are sold to consumers—as the name implies—under a brand name. Typically, because these products are “branded” and actively marketed by manufacturers they are sold at higher prices than equivalent no-name generics. This is because consumers are generally willing to pay more for drugs that are manufactured by well known and trusted companies as compared with no-name generics which are usually produced by lesser known or unidentified manufacturers.

Branded generics are not a new or novel concept. They were previously championed by a number of generics manufacturers, most notably Barr Laboratories, which was recently purchased by the Israeli generics giant TEVA. In the past, when pharma embraced the blockbuster drug business model, drug manufacturers built in revenues— that eventually would be lost through patent expiry—into the price of their top selling drugs. This allows drug companies to maximize ROI early in a drug’s life cycle years before patent expiry Studies have shown that branded prescription drugs can lose as much as 90% of their original value two years after the introduction of generic equivalents. Consequently, because of drastically diminishing financial returns after patent expiry, it didn’t make economic sense to continue to promote and support a brand that was facing generic competition. Put simply, the company made its money on the drug and it is time to move on. 

However, the emergence in recent years of an affluent middle class in developing markets like China, India, Brazil, Eastern Europe and elsewhere is causing branded pharmaceutical companies to reconsider their generics strategy. In these markets, many people frequently pay out of pocket for their medicines but cannot afford to pay for the expensive brand name drugs. Also, in some emerging markets, where the threat of low quality or counterfeit prescription drugs may be high, consumers who can afford to purchase medicines are willing to pay more for drugs manufactured by well known and respected companies. Finally, IMS Health estimates that close to $89 billion in US drug sales alone will be lost to generic competition over the next five years or so.

In the absence of any new blockbuster drugs on the horizon, many big pharma companies have been scrambling to acquire or enter into relationship with established regional generic manufacturers. For example, GlaxoSmithKline recently bought a stake in Aspen a South African generics manufacturer and entered into an agreement with India-based Dr. Reddy’s laboratory to sell generic products in Asia and other emerging markets. Likewise, in the last year, Pfizer created an off-patent generics division (products are sold under Greenstone label which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer) and signed agreements with three Indian companies to sell their products in the US and other markets. These deals added about 200 products to Pfizer’s new generics portfolio. Further, Pfizer recently announced that the Greenstone brand has become the world’s seventh largest generics seller. In addition, Pfizer is expected to make a formal bid to purchase the financially-troubled German generics manufacturer Ratiopharm; one of Germany’s largest purveyor of generic drugs.

Not to be outdone by the competition, the French drug maker Sanofi-Aventis recently purchased Brazil-based Medley, a dominant player in the South American branded generics industry and Laboratorios Kendrik, a Mexican generics producer. Last year, the company also purchased Zentiva, a leading Czech generic manufacturer signally the company’s intention to move into financially-lucrative Eastern European markets.

Watson, one of the largest American generics manufacturers (which primarily operates in the US) recently purchased Arrow, a generic producer that operates in 20 different countries. Finally, Novartis, recognizing a business opportunity before most of its competitors, entered the generic market in 2003 following creation of Sandoz, a division of Novartis that manufactures and sells small molecule generic drugs and branded biosimilar products. Recently, Novartis purchased the German branded generics manufacturer Hexal, making it the world’s second largest generic drug manufacturer after Teva.

The entry of pharmaceutical companies into the generics business is allowing these companies to pursue a two-tiered business strategy in certain markets which is designed to preserve the long term value of their branded franchises. For example, companies can continue to sell their expensive name-brand drugs to the wealthy (or those that can afford them) and concurrently sell the more moderately priced branded generics which includes and over the counter products to the broader market. 

While some may lament the end of the blockbuster drug era, rising healthcare costs and generic competition is forcing big pharma to continue to explore novel and innovative strategies to reinvent itself.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try the generic industry; business is booming)

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

According to an article that appeared in the Indian publication The Hindu Business Line, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is set to increase the size of its Indian marketing and sales force to better support the sale of vaccines and other specialty products. A company executive said that GSK will add another 200 people to its 2,250 member sales and marketing team.

GSK is repositioning itself to be more competitive in developing and emerging markets like India, China, Brazil and elsewhere. The announcement to increase the size of its workforce in India comes only a couple of weeks after the company announced massive global layoffs that would affect at least 4,000 GSK employees.

Hat tip to Ed at Pharmalot!

Until next time...

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

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

The past couple of weeks have been awful for employees at AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline after both companies announced massive worldwide layoffs. Interestingly, the downsizing that has taken place at Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) in recent years has escaped notice; mainly because media attention has been focused on the sale of two of its non-pharmaceutical divisions, Convatec and Mead Johnson. The sale of these two divisions brought in roughly $8.0 billion giving BMS one of the largest cash reserves among major pharmaceutical companies. 

BMS announced two years ago that is would cut its global work force by 10 percent by 2011. Layoffs and cost cutting measures at BMS have been mainly driven by the impending patent expiry of the blockbuster anti-clotting agent Plavix and several other drugs. Plavix reportedly accounts for a disproportionate amount of the company’s annual sale revenues. Despite its new found largess, the company continues to eliminate jobs and shed employees. To make matters worse, BMS confirmed today (as reported on both Pharmalot and the WSJ Health Blog) that it will eliminate pay raises in 2010 for the people who still have jobs at the company. Luckily, bonuses were not eliminated. But as most people who work at big companies will tell you, bonuses are not guaranteed and discretionary. Check out the 2008 total compensation packages (salary, stock options, stock awards, pension etc).

While I don’t profess to have the credentials to be the CEO of a major pharmaceutical company, it doesn’t make sense to me to freeze the salaries of employees who are already overly anxious about whether or not they will have jobs when the next round of layoffs take place. Isn’t morale already bad enough?  Does management think employees will be at the top of their games and willing to work hard if they are constantly worrying whether or not tomorrow may be their last day of work?  Of course, naysayers will say that BMS employees should suck it up because they at least have jobs. However, I contend that management ought to invest a portion of the $8.0 billion in its employees rather then use it to buy several more companies to convince Wall Street analysts that BMS is truly a “next generation biopharmaceutical company.”  After all, employees are any company’s most valuable asset!

Until next time....

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

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

Despite the announcement late last week in the London Sunday Times that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) will eliminate 4000 jobs worldwide, company official are refusing to disclose the number of worker who will lose their jobs in the US. Cuts are expected throughout the US including GSK’s R&D facilities in the Philadelphia, PA area and at its US headquarters in Research Triangle Park, NC which employs roughly 5,000 people.

GSK officials typically refuse to share detailed information on how layoffs affect its Triangle work force. Nearly a year ago, the company cut an undisclosed number of workers at a customer response center in RTP. GSK announced a first cost-cutting initiative in October 2007, eliminating thousands of jobs worldwide, and then it expanded that effort in February 2009 with many hundreds losing jobs at it North Carolina facilities in RTP and nearby Zebulon.

This coming Thursday is expected to be pink slip day at GSK.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (forget RTP)!!!!!!!

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

The loss of over 200,000 pharmaceutical jobs over the past three years has been mainly driven by the anticipated loss of revenue from blockbuster drugs that will lose patent protection by 2013. While drug makers frequently cite blockbuster patent expiry as the reason for the need to downsize, they rarely provide the business and economic metrics, numbers and statistics that have influenced their decisions. 

Patricia Van Arnum, Senior Editor of Pharmaceutical Technology wrote a fascinating article in this month’s issue of Pharmaceutical Technology Europe that skillfully outlined the economic forces that are driving branded pharmaceutical companies to downsize and reorganize. According to the article, in October 2009 the pharmaceutical intelligence firm IMS estimated that the global pharmaceutical market is expected to growth 4-6% in 2010 and reach $825 billion. Market growth at an annual rate of 4-7% is expected to continue through 2013 and the size of global pharmaceutical market is projected to exceed $975 billion. The US pharmaceutical market, the largest in the world, is expected to drive much of this growth. However, the growth of the American market is only expected to be 3.5% in 2010. In market contrast, China’s pharmaceutical market is expected to increase by a staggering 20% per year and contribute 21% to the overall growth of the global pharmaceutical market by 2013. 

While prospects for the US market are better than originally anticipated, the loss of nearly $137 billion in revenues in 2013— because of patent expiry of blockbuster products—coupled with fewer new drug approvals are the factors that will limit the growth of the global pharmaceutical market to single digits through 2013 and likely beyond. Some of the drugs slated to lose patent protection by 2013 include Lipitor (atorvastatin) by Pfizer, Plavix (clopidogrel) by Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb and Seretide/Advair (salmeterol and fluticasone) by GlaxoSmithKline. Lipitor, Plavix and Seretide were the number one-, two- and foruth best-selling drugs in 2008 with global sales of $13.7 billion, $8.6 billion and $7.7 billion respectively.

The increasing growth of the generic pharmaceutical industry is best reflected in the concomitant growth of merchant active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) manufacturing industry. In the API world, there are two types of manufacturers; the so-called captive API producers or companies that exclusively manufacture APIs for finished, branded products and merchant manufacturers which are third party providers of APIs. Over the past four years or so, the growth of the merchant API market for generic products has substantially outpaced the growth of the API for innovator products. For example, from 2004-2008 the merchant market for generics grew at an average annual rate of 9.1% from $12 billion in 2004 to $17 billion in 2008 according to a recent report by the Chemical Pharmaceutical Association (CPA). In contrast, the CPA determined that the merchant market for innovator/branded APIs only increased at an average annual rate of 4.4% from $16 billion in 2004 to $19 billion in 2008. Looking ahead, the worldwide market for merchant APIs is projected to grow at an average annual growth rate of 6.8% through 2013 to about $50 billion. During this period, growth of innovator APIs is expected to be about 1.8% whereas the growth of generic API is expected to be a robust 11.4%.

The US is currently the largest market for generic APIs and consumed roughly 22.9% of the total global demand for generic APIs in 2008. China, which is the second largest consumer of generic APIs, consumed 19.2%. While the US is expected to remain the largest consumer of both innovator and generic APIs, China is projected to become the largest consumer of generic APIs in 2013 capturing a 26% share of the total generic API market (the US will be number 2 with 20.5% market share).

According to industry analysts, China, India, Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe (most notably Russia), represent attractive growth opportunities for generic APIs. India and China now account for roughly 25% of the global generic market and demand in these countries is expected to remain strong for the foreseeable future as the middle class continues to emerge. To that end, China is projected to have the highest average annual growth rate at 18.4% and India’s market will grow by 14% through 2013. Similar growth is expected for the Eastern European, Russian and Brazilian generic API markets.

While the economic size of emerging generic markets is still small compared with those of the US, Western Europe and Japan, it signals that generic drugs will likely drive the future growth of the pharmaceutical industry. The lack of innovation and rising costs of branded, prescription drugs in developed nations is the main driving force behind the rapid emergence of the generic drug industry. That said, is it any wonder why Pfizer is thinking about entering the generic pharmaceutical business and that Western drug companies are shedding scientists and sales people in the US and Europe and growing the sizes of their R&D and sales force staffs in Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America? Honestly, if I had any money left to invest, I would seriously be considering traded generic pharmaceutical manufacturers—their future success is almost guaranteed!

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Britain’s largest pharmaceutical company today announced it plans on slashing 4,000 jobs over the coming months. The bulk of the cuts will be in America and Europe, and are part of the company’s efforts to shift resources away from low-growth territories into parts of the world with greater scope to expand sales, most notably Asia. GSK’s currently employs 99,000 workers worldwide. The reduction in headcount will be combined with a drive to make the company’s research and development more cost-efficient. 

While the job losses will not be as severe as those announced last week by its rival Astra Zeneca, they will provide further depressing news for a sector that is fighting to contain costs as it reduces its reliance on big-selling blockbuster drugs, many of whose patents will expire in the next two to three years.

The pipeline of new drugs at GSK is much deeper than at many of its rivals, say industry analysts. The company’s roster of planned launches includes Menhibrix, a vaccine to combat meningitis, and Benlysta (belimumab), a novel, monoclonal antibody treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus that it is co-developing with Maryland-based, Human Genome Sciences. In total, the group has more than 30 products in the advanced stages of development and testing.

While GSK continues to develop new drugs, it has increasingly been turning to emerging markets to find and sustain corporate growth. This has meant that thousands of jobs have already been sacrificed in the West, although the company is adding staff elsewhere. For example, it recently cut 2,000 sales jobs in America but added 1,500 staff in China. Also, GSK’s vaccine division has suffered a few regulatory setbacks with its pneumococcal vaccine Synflorix and its cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix. The loss of market share in these areas has put additional financial pressure on the company.

Like many of its competitors, GSK is looking to other divisions of the company to cover projected losses in the pharmaceutical sector. Recently, GSK has shifted a lot of its attention to its consumer products division, which owns brands such as Lucozade and Ribena soft drinks, Aquafresh and Sensodyne toothpaste, and over-the-counter medicines such as Panadol painkillers and Alli, a weight-loss pill. Analysts predict the division will have raised its annual sales 18% to £4.7 billion. A deal signed last year to increase sales of Lucozade in China has provided the blueprint for how the company would like to develop the consumer healthcare side of its business.

Similarly, last week, Sanofi-Aventis, a French rival, announced a joint venture with Minsheng Pharmaceutical Group, a Chinese company, to sell vitamin pills and nutritional supplements. Also, Pfizer recently announced it would bid for the possibility of purchasing the financially-troubled German generics manufacturer Ratiopharm; signaling the possibility that the world's largest branded pharmaceutical manager may be toying with the idea of getting into the generics business.

Late last year I predicted that more pharmaceutical company employees would loss their jobs. Sadly, this prediction has come true. That said, I am surprised at the scope and size of the layoffs that have already taken place in 2010. I suspect that more layoffs are likely in the near future if the economy doesn’t turn around anytime soon.

Hat tip to Ed at the Pharmalot blog!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try medical devices or biotech)!!!!!!!!

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

As a blogger I get on average 2-3 press releases per day from publicists who want me to pick up their releases and publish them on BioJobBlog. I usually pass. But, the one that I received from a publicist who represents eco-friendly and politically-correct Red Handed Bags was too good not to share with my readers (see below)

Pharm giant sales force goes green with high fashion handbags

Raleigh NC-based fashion designers Aaron Turney and Tracy Russomano are used to working with fashion conscious women.  But this year, they devoted their special talents efforts to addressing the special needs of a unique group of highly specialized handbag users – pharmaceutical sales reps.

GlaxoSmithKline asked them to design an environmentally friendly work bag specifically for their pharmaceutical sales reps to use on the job.

Redhanded Bags has created a line of beautiful handbags using green technologies, animal free materials, and sweat free manufacturing facilities and workforces. 

“It’s pretty admirable that they’ve set themselves a goal for using handbags that don’t hurt animals, don’t pollute the environment and don’t exploit anyone,” said Tracy Russomano. “We worked directly with the sales people to design the ideal pharm sales rep bag. When we were done, GSKs onsite ergonomist gives the bags an excellent rating for ergonomic design.”  

“Handbags should turn heads, bring out inner beauty, and contribute to a sustainable environment,” said Ms. Russomano. “Pharmaceutical sales reps can look great  and be eco-friendly.”  I am partial to the middle bag; which one is your fav?

I find it admirable that GSK is thinking environmentally. However, are several thousand eco-friendly handbags for sales reps really going to make a difference? I think it would behoove GSK and other drug makers to invest in developing green manufacturing technologies and facilities if they are truly concerned about reducing the size of their carbon foot prints. 

After visiting the Red Handed bags website, I agree with Ms Russomano, that pharma reps (who still have jobs)  will look great and turn some head while sporting the new bags (exactly what GSK wants). That said, it is extremely gratifying to know that the environment is safe, no animals were killed and no workers were exploited to help sales reps sell drugs to their customers!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Shopping (check out the handcuff clutch)

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

Late last week, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved GlaxoSmithKline’s cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix for use in girls and women ages 10 to 25 and also approved Gardasil —Merck’s cervical cancer vaccine previously approved in 2006 for use in girls and women—for boys and men ages 9 to 26. For those of you who may not know, over 99% of human cervical cancers are caused by infections with cancer-causing strains of the human papilloma virus (HPV) which also causes venereal warts. Vaccination with Cervarix protects against cervical cancer by inducing immunity against HPV 16 and 18 (which cause most cervical cancers in developed nations) whereas Gardasil affords protection against HPV 16 and 18 as well as HPV 6 and 11, strains that cause venereal warts (which don’t lead to cancer).

Despite FDA’s approval to vaccinate boys with Gardasil to prevent HPV infections, the Centers for Disease Control’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)— which guides national policy on use of vaccines—decided yesterday to recommend the use of the vaccine in girls and women but didn’t fully endorse its use in males. Typically, ACIP recommendations are adopted by professional medical associations and set the standards of practice for physicians. Also, its recommendations play a major role in determining whether or not insurers and third party payors will reimburse patients who are vaccinated. The new recommendations mean, in effect, that physicians and clinics may now administer the vaccine at their discretion to boys and men ages 9 to 26, but they are not expected to offer it. In contrast, vaccination of girls and women ages 10 to 25 will be strongly recommended, readily available and reimbursable. This means that parents may consider the vaccine as an option for their sons, but some health insurers may choose not to cover the shots—an option which is sure to severely limit the numbers of boys and men who are vaccinated with Gardasil.

The ACIP committee decided not to include Gardasil immunization for boys and men on its recommended list because several members, most notably a medical economist, questioned whether vaccinating boys would be cost effective in the long run. At the heart of the debate was whether or not it was appropriate and cost-effective to vaccinate boys for a problem (venereal warts) that can be embarrassing and uncomfortable but is not life-threatening. For those of you who may not know, Gardasil immunization is expensive and requires a series of three injections that cost $130 each ($390 total).  Cervarix, which also requires a series of three injections, is planned to be offered for $385.

Last year in the United States, about 37 percent of girls ages 13 to 17 started the Gardasil vaccine series, a national immunization survey showed, and about half of them completed it. Not a great track record for a vaccine demonstrated to prevent cervical cancer and dramatically reduce the transmission of venereal warts. Nevertheless, yesterday’s decision to recommend vaccination for girls and women but not boys and men makes no sense to me from a public health perspective and it almost smacks of gender bias. Let me explain.

Like all other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), HPV is transmitted from men to women and visa versa. Based on years of epidemiological studies, the only effective way to reduce the overall incidence of STDs is to implement strategies that prevent infections in both females and males. While boys and men can’t develop cervical cancer, they do contract venereal warts and perhaps, more importantly, can serve as carriers or reservoirs of HPV infection in the population. In other words, infected males (who may or may not show symptoms of HPV infection) still possess the potential to transmit it to sexually-active, unvaccinated girls and women. Consequently, while the incidence of HPV infections may begin to decrease among women after immunization, it will never be completely eliminated and the possibility of developing cervical cancer will continue to be a public health concern.

While the ACIP’s understanding of the transmission of STDs is tragically flawed, its willingness to publicly disclose cost effectiveness as a reason to not endorse HPV vaccination for males is even more egregious! The agency’s decision begs the question: Which is more costly; 10,000 American women developing cervical cancer each year (and countless others going for unnecessary cervical biopsies because of “bad” Pap smears) or a heads up to insurance companies that they ought to cover the costs of male HPV immunizations? 

The ACIP’s reluctance to recommend male HPV vaccination based on economic and health care cost concerns rather than on public health implications is yet another example of how broken the US healthcare system is and how drastically it needs to be reformed. Allowing 3,700 women to die each year in the US from cervical cancer when there is a safe and effective way to prevent these deaths is, in my opinion, unconscionable!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

My son, who is a 9^th grader, was recently asked to write an essay for his social studies class about the application of Machiavellian principles to modern day rulers and governments. One of Machiavelli’s ideas that he chose to write about was the notion that a good ruler or government must do it’s very best to insure the safety and health of its subjects or constituents. While this may seem altruistic or philanthropic don’t be fooled—workers who are afraid, unhealthy or regularly ill aren’t productive and can threaten the economic well-being and stability of a society. In any event, he asked me to help with a modern day example of how safety can be reconciled with the Machiavellian principle; “the end justifies the means.” As an infectious disease professional, I quickly realized that mandatory vaccination of newborns and school-aged children against viral and bacterial diseases is a great example.

Prior to the development and subsequent worldwide use of childhood vaccines, epidemics and pandemics of smallpox, measles, polio, diphtheria and other serious diseases routinely ravaged the planet with impunity. During the recurring outbreaks, large numbers of people became ill, and while some sustained life-long debilitating injuries, many others suffered long, painful and excruciating deaths. The recognition that often devastating and regularly occurring outbreaks and epidemics could threaten the well being— and possibly destabilize monarchies and democratically elected governments—  led to the development of  20^th century vaccines against many bacterial and viral childhood diseases. However, it is important to note, while most vaccines are safe and offer protection for many individuals (typically 90% or higher), a small percentage (usually 1% to 5%) of those vaccinated, may experience side effects ranging from mild to severe and possibly life threatening. I believe that vaccination is a polemic for the “ends justify the means” principle because while some vaccinated individual may suffer serious side effects or death greater numbers will benefit from the protection and safety afforded by most vaccines. In other words, governments must be willing to risk harm and possibly death to some of its citizens to insure the productivity, well being and ultimately the safety of the majority.

Despite the medical and health benefits of vaccines, the anti-vaccine movement in the US has steadily been gaining strength of late. Vaccine opponents’ fears have been stoked and promulgated by bogus clinical data offered by fraudulent scientists (which have subsequently been discredited and refuted) and media outlets seeking sensational stories to sell magazines and newspapers. Last week, a 14 year old British girl died shortly after being vaccinated with Cervarix, GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) cervical cancer vaccine. This story was quickly pounced upon by the British tabloids and widely circulated.  In the end, the safety of the Cervarix—a vaccine administered to 1.8 million girls without a single death similar to the one that had occurred—became suspect. Almost immediately, anti-vaccine advocates publicized this unfortunate incident as another other reason why parents shouldn’t vaccinate their children. The girl’s death prompted UK officials to immediately suspend all nationwide Cervarix vaccinations; even though an autopsy hadn’t been performed to determine the actual cause of the girl’s death. After an autopsy was finally performed, British health officials announced that the girl had a large cardiac tumor that had infiltrated one of her lungs and that it was likely cancer not Cervarix that caused her death. Unfortunately, the media’s feeding frenzy fanned by the anti-vaccine lobby’s loud voice may have cost GSK US FDA approval of  Cervarix—a product approved and safely used in over 100 countries! 

About three weeks prior to the British girl’s death, an FDA advisory committee unanimously recommended approval of Cervarix. Generally, the agency follows recommendations of its advisory committees. Ironically, the girl’s death occurred several day’s prior to an FDA decision on whether or not to approve Cervarix. Much to the surprise of many industry experts, this past Tuesday, FDA delayed its decision on Cervarix’s approval. FDA spokespeople claimed that the girl’s death had no bearing on its decision to delay Cervarix’s approval (if you believe that, would any of you be interested in some land in Florida?).

It is no secret that GSK has struggled to get Cervarix approved in the US —a decision on its approval has been delayed three times over the past several years. In the interim, the company has managed to successfully address all of the agency’s concerns over Cervarix’s safety and efficacy.

FDA’s decision to delay Cervarix’s approval is great news and something of a victory for Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil— the ONLY cervical cancer vaccine approved in the US and Cervarix’s main competitor. Failure of Cervarix to win FDA approval will undoubtedly help Merck to bolster Gardasil sales and help it maintain its stranglehold on the US anti-cervical cancer market for the foreseeable future!

Until next time...

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

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

A spokesperson at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced today that it decided to delay its decision whether or not to approve GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) anti-cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix. The agency was scheduled to announce its ruling Tuesday on whether to approve Cervarix, but a GSK spokeswoman said the review will continue. An agency spokesperson failed to disclose any reasons for the delay because FDA doesn’t comment on ongoing product reviews. This is the second regulatory delay for Cervarix in the past two years.

The delay comes as something of a surprise because earlier this Earlier this month, an outside panel of health experts voted that Cervarix appears safe and effective for girls and women ages 10 to 25. The FDA is not required to follow the group's advice, though it usually does. Cervarix already is approved in nearly 100 other countries, but has been delayed in the U.S. since 2007, when the FDA said it needed additional safety data.

An approval from FDA would allow London-based GSK to compete against Merck's blockbuster vaccine Gardasil, which has been on the US market following its approval in 2006. Based on all available published reports, Cervarix has a similar safety profile and efficacy profile as compared with Gardasil.

One of the issues with Cervarix may be the adjuvant use to formulate the vaccine to bolster anti-HPV immunity. While Merck's Gardasil uses an aluminum salt adjuvant, Cervarix uses a novel adjuvant known as AS04. The agency’s lack of familiarity with AS04 and possible concerns about its safety may be what is delaying the Cervarix decision. 

Stay tuned for further details!

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

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) inked a deal yesterday with the Indian generics manufacturer Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories giving it access to over 100 future generic drugs and a gateway to Asia’s emerging pharmaceutical markets. The therapeutic areas covered under the agreement include diabetes, cardiovascular, pain management, gastroenterology and oncology. Dr Reddy’s Laboratories is one of India’s largest generic drug manufacturers. Like many of its competitors, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories also have active development programs for new biotechnology drugs and biosimilar products.

UK-based, GSK joins a growing number of pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Merck and others that have entered into deals with major generic drug manufacturers—or purchased smaller generics companies—to gain access to generics pipelines and an ability to compete in emerging  non-branded pharmaceutical markets. Impending US healthcare reform and downward pricing pressures (resulting from increased global competition) have forced drug makers to reevaluate the role that generic drugs will likely play in future pharmaceutical revenue streams.

While generic drug makers have outstanding manufacturing capabilities, they generally lack the marketing, sales and distribution channels necessary to penetrate foreign markets and quickly ramp up drug sales. I suspect that the number of deals between pharmaceutical companies and generic manufacturers will continue to increase as many of the patents for multibillion, blockbuster drugs continue to expire in the next few years.

Until next time....

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

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

The old baseball adage which says that  “you can’t tell the players apart without a program” is particularly apt when it comes to tracing the M &A activity that led to the creation of some today's largest pharmaceutical companies.

I used to be able to keep track of all of the moving parts  of most of these mergers but advancing age and unprecedented M&A activity in the pharma industry prevents me from successfully doing this any longer. To that end, about a week ago, the New York Times published a pretty cool and informative chart that historically traces the corporate mergers that lead to creation of Pfizer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis and others.

Check it out!!!!!

Until next time...

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

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

In the wake of last week’s Pfizer-Wyeth M&A feeding frenzy, I suspect that most analysts were hoping that this week would be a little quieter. Unfortunately for many pharmaceutical company employees, this week may be shaping up to be almost as nerve-wracking as last week!and declared that it was on the hunt for a merger or acquisition partner. A ll of the usual suspects have been cited as possibilities. They include: Bristol Myers Squibb (Plavix, Erbitux, Orencia Abilify) , Amgen (EPO, Aranesp, Neupogen, Neulasta and Enbrel), Biogen-Idec (Avonex, Tsyabri and Rituxan) (Actavis (generics) Ratiopharm (generics) and Crucell (vaccines). The hands on favorite and most likely target would be Bristol Myers Squibb because the two companies co-market Plavix, their top selling drug that is due to lose patent protection in the next year or so. That said, in this environment anything can happen. 

In other news, GlaxoSmithKline announced that it will be cutting 6,000 jobs later this week when the company puts out financial results. The company began reorganizing itself in 2007 and will continue to do over the next few years to deal with generic encroachment on several of its top selling drugs. Glaxo employs about 100,000 people worldwide. Analysts suspect that many of the job cuts will occur in the UK and that sales rep may be hit the hardest in this latest round of layoffs.

Until next time…

 Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

About a year ago, I was eating lunch and bunch of pharma executives were at the table next to me. I inadvertently overhead bits of their conversation and I heard the words, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube mentioned. This suggested to me that pharma was more aware of social media (and its business implications) than pharma publicly cared to admit. Pharma has been reluctant to embrace social media because of possible legal and regulatory ramifications. Nevertheless, a few companies have decided to boldly go where no pharma company has gone before—to YouTube.

The Eye on FDA blog, which is very bullish on social media, has been keeping aof pharma companies that have created channels on YouTube, the video site owned by Google. To date, Sanofi Pasteur, GSK, Abbot and JNJ have taken the YouTube plunge (see SanofiPasteurTV , GSKVision, AbbottChannel, andJNJHealth).  I suspect that pharma companies are willing to take a risk on YouTube, because unlike other social media platforms, they can disable the functionality that allows viewer to leave comments, kudos or kvetches after viewing videos. This shields the companies from unwarranted claims, misinformation about its products and negative publicity.

At present, the US Food and Drug Administration, has issued little or no guidance on the use of social media by drug makers. This means that drug makers are in uncharted territory and can experiment with social media without fear of much regulatory oversight or scrutiny.  Now that pharma has broken the social media barrier, I wonder whether MySpace, Facebook and Twitter (the hottest new social media tool at the moment) will be next. Interestingly, I learned yesterday that Novartis uses twitter and can be followed @Novartis.

Off the record conversations with MySpace representatives suggest that a number of pharmaceuticals have quietly created branded product pages on MySpace for years.  As the MySpace rep put it, how can you ignore an audience of 60 million people?  Further, Facebook’s fan pages are growing in popularity and don’t be surprise to see pharma pages begin to appear there. It will be interesting to see how pharma will incorporate social media into its business and marketing models in the future.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Video Watching!!!!!!!!

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

GlaxoSmithKline announced late last fall that it would acquire California-based Genelabs for $57 million in cash. The deal closed yesterday and the exodus began today.

According to sources at the company, Genelabs employees will be offered a week of severance pay for each year of service. Genelabs executives and employees have been given pink slips.

By purchasing Genelabs, GSK establishes a presence on the West Coast. Also, it will strengthen its effort to develop therapies against the hepatitis C virus. Genelabs will become part of Glaxo’s drug discovery organization and its hepatitis C virus program.

Luckily for former Genelabs employees, California biotechnology companies are still hiring.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!! 

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

The Pharmalot blog reported today that Bristol-Myers Squibb will be laying off 5% of its workforce (~ 34 employees) by year’s end at its manufacturing facility near Syracuse, NY. And, Sanofi-Aventis announced that it will be giving pink slips to about 10% of its sales force —about 650 reps—before the end of the year.

To make matters worse, Merck released its annual revenue projections for 2009 today which suggest that its earnings and revenue will not meet Wall Street expectations. Merck recently “cleaned house” and eliminated thousands of scientific and mid-management jobs. The list of pharmaceutical companies that have downsized in 2008 includes Merck, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Schering Plough, Boehringer Ingelheim, Wyeth and Sanofi-Aventis. I probably missed a few but who is counting?

Until next time….

Good Luck and Hold On to Your Job (if you can)

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

Astra Zeneca announced today that it would cut 1400 jobs and close several manufacturing facilities worldwide. According to a post on the Pharmalot blog “about 600 full-time jobs will be lost in Sweden as packaging operations are expanded in Wuxi, China. The cuts will come on top of the 7,600 positions the drugmaker plans to eliminate by 2010. The plant closings will occur in Spain, Belgium and Sweden by 2013. Manufacturing jobs will also be trimmed in Sweden and the UK as production is shifted to lower-cost countries in emerging markets.”

On Tuesday Wyeth disclosed that it was eliminating 70 positions at its Pearl River, New York, facility (which employs 3,200 workers, 118 employees at its Rouses Point facility in upstate New York that employs 725 people work, and 124 jobs at its Sanford, North Carolina manufacturing facility. Ironically, as more and more US workers are laid off, many big pharma companies like Merck, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are expanding operations at their research facilities in India. In fact, Merck is doubling its headcount from 800 to 1,600 employees at its research facility in India that was opened a little over a year ago.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Keep on Looking!!!!

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

The Pharmalot blog reported yesterday that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) will tell its US pharma employees today about a new reorganization plan that will include more job cuts. The restructuring will primarily affect sales reps and some R&D personnel. GSK, like most other pharma companies, has been steadily downsizing operations and headcount for the past year or so at its US locations in Research Triangle Park, NC and Philadelphia PA

Look for the layoffs to occur before Thanksgiving—just about the time when employee’s annual bonuses are calculated.

Until next time…

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

P.S.  It was learned today by the Phamalot Blog that 1,880 sales reps and sales support staff job will be eliminated over the next few months. Also, the company may consolidate its Philadelphia and Research Triangle Park headquarters.

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

The Pharmalot blog reported today that Merck received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration to use Gardasil to prevent vaginal and vulval cancer in addition to cervical cancer.

Of late, Gardasil has been a lightening rod for controversy—mostly because of Merck’s unrelenting marketing campaigns (and the behind-the-scenes lobbying for the vaccine to be placed on the US mandatory vaccination list)  coupled with the Christian right’s moral machinations about premarital sex and sexually transmitted diseases in general. Also, let’s not forget the brouhaha surrounding FDA’s decision to delay approval of GlaxoSmithKline’s competing cervical cancer vaccine called Cervarix. Finally, about a month ago, there was study published in the New England Journal of Medicine questioning the cost effectiveness of Gardasil vaccination of women after the age of 18.

Regardless of your moral, ethical or business concerns about Gardasil, the bottom line is this: girls/women vaccinated with Gardasil are much less likely to develop cervical cancer as compared with those who are not vaccinated.

As I have mentioned before, all approved and marketed drugs have side effects and possible safety/tolerability issues. More importantly, the decision to approve a particular drug is always based on a careful risks/benefits assessment by government healthcare regulators. Whether or not a person uses a drug or vaccine is ultimately a personal choice. With the exception of mandatory childhood vaccines (children can be exempted for moral or religious reasons), every American has the right to decide whether or not to use a medication or undergo a treatment recommend by a healthcare professional. Based on everything that I have read about Gardasil, it appears to be a safe and effective vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. When FDA finally approves Cervarix (probably sometime in late 2009), it will offer women who may have concerns about Gardasil with an alternate vaccine to protect them against developing cervical cancer.

The funny thing about the Gardasil firestorm is that cervical cancer isn’t a major healthcare problem in the US. This is because a majority of American women undergo annual routine gynecological examinations (that include pap smears, the current gold standard for cervical cancer detection). In contrast, cervical cancer is a major healthcare problem and economic concern in Asia, most notably in China and India. This begs the question—why are Merck and GSK so intent on selling their cervical cancer vaccines in the US? Put simply, there is still much more money to be made in the US than in Asia. Look for approval of Gardasil and Cervarix in China and India when the middle class of both countries reach a critical mass.

Until next time…

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

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

The recent bad press about Gardasil, Merck’s anti-cervical cancer vaccine, must have been keeping its marketing and advertising executives up at night because the company recently launched a marketing campaign called Charm4Life—a line of jewelry designed to raise awareness about cervical cancer. According to a post at the Pharmalot Blog, women (or concerned men) can pay $32 for any of four “limited edition” bangles designed by Carolyn Rafaelian, a designer with Alex and Ani.  The Charm4Life campaign could also be in response to the likely approval early next year of Cervarix, GlaxoSmithKline’s anti-HPV vaccine.

Merck insists that the campaign is to promote awareness about cervical cancer and that all proceeds from sale of the bangles will go to the Prevent Cancer Foundation. Of course, the real goal of the campaign is to promote Gardasil vaccination by raising their awareness of cervical cancer.  

The $32 price tag for the bangles is way cheaper than the $365 it costs for the Gardasil vaccination series. That said, I hope women don’t buy the bangles and forego Gardasil vaccination.

Hat tip to Ed at Pharmalot

Until next time…

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

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

It was only a matter of time after J & J launched its health channel on YouTube two weeks ago, that other pharma companies would begin to post videos on video-sharing sites. As a general rule, nobody in pharma wants to be first but after the first company takes the plunge, nobody wants to be left out or behind. Therefore, it came as no surprise when late last week, GlaxoSmithKline (which has a tendency to be second-to-market with competing products), launched a beta version of it so-called GSKCIC channel on You\Tube.

 According to a post on the Pharmalot blog, so far there are only two videos on the channel. One describes the company ongoing commitment and fight against disease in the developing world (ironically, the video ends prematurely).The second, which is full length, features CEO Andrew Witty telling us about his career at GSK (which began in 1985 as a management trainee) and how GSK is looking for a few good employees who “like a good challenge.” Curiously, the day after the Witty video appeared on YouTube, GSK announced that it was laying off about 90 workers or 10% of its work force at its manufacturing plant in Zebulon, North Carolina. A company spokesperson said that more cuts are expected at the North Carolina facility.

Maybe someone at GSK ought to tell its CEO that the company isn’t hiring at the moment?????????

Hat tip to Ed at Pharmalot!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

The Avandia debacle is still ravaging the employee ranks at GlaxoSmithKline especially at its Research Triangle Park, North Carolina and in Philadelphia locations. According to a post at Pharmalot, the UK-based drug manufacturer is cutting as many as 350 jobs (2.0% of its workforce) at both locations. This represents an almost 40% reduction in drug discovery and development activities that take place at both sites.

These cuts come after GSK closed a factory and drastically cut its sales force late last year. To make matters worse (particularly for those folks who lost their jobs) GSK purchased an early-stage drug discovery company called Sirtris Pharmaceuticals for about $720 million earlier this year. Clearly, company executives have more faith in external rather than internal drug discovery at GSK.

The saga continues……

Until next time

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (forget North Carolina)!!!!!

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

As many of you may recall, Merck tried unsuccessfully last year to lobby state and federal officials to pass legislation that would require mandatory vaccination of girls aged 9-26 with Gardasil, its anti-HPV, cervical cancer vaccine. Merck came under fire for its efforts (which seemed ethically disingenuous to many). Consequently, the company’s image took a hit and its stock price started to tumble. Although Merck stopped its lobbying campaign (mostly because of bad press and a flagging stock price), Gardasil ads continued to run and went largely unnoticed.

Because GlaxoSmithKline may be close to launching Cervarix^Tm—its cervical cancer vaccine—  the company recently decided that it was time to ramp up its Gardasil advertising efforts. Starting this past Saturday and continuing through June 26, Gardasil ads will be gracing the screens of a theater  near you. The ads will be shown with films like “Sex and the City” (hmmm, clever wouldn’t you say?), “Get Smart” (who doesn’t remember Barbara Feldon), “The Happening” (what woman doesn’t love a scary movie), “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan” (Adam Sandler is hot) and several others. I want to thank Ed Silverman over at Pharmalot for the heads up on this story!  I don't know about you, but I think that showing commercials at the movies, especially those hawking pharmaceutical products, is just plain wrong!!!!!!!!

This isn’t the first appearance of Gardasil ads at the cinema—I recall seeing an ad for Gardasil the last time I went to the movies (I don’t remember the movie but I clearly can recall the ad!). According to a Merck spokeswoman (aren’t pharmaceutical companies clever?), “We purchased advertised space that is relevant for our older female target audiences; specifically for the summer movies that are relevant to those aged 19 through 26.” 

As Ed so eloquently stated in his Pharmalot post: “Of course, plenty of teenagers will be seeing some of these flicks, too. Zohan and Get Smart are rated PG-13. And Sex and The Happening are rated R, but the restrictions only apply for kids under 17– some of whom will, no doubt, see them anyway.  In any event, Gardasil is unlikely to be available as a value pack that includes soda and popcorn. But we (Pharmalot) are curious to know whether the Gardasil beach towel is about to make a comeback.”

 Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Movie Watching!!!!!!!!!!

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

The regulatory problems at Wyeth continue. The US Food and Drug Agency announced that it issued an approvable letter for Tygacil (Wyeth’s tetracycline-like antibiotic) to treat community acquired pneumonia (CAP). Apparently, FDA regulators want more data on the effectiveness and safety of Tygacil in severe cases of CAP and additional information on possible liver toxicity.

Tygacil, an intravenously administered antibiotic, won FDA approval in 2005 to treat adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections and complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Tygacil had about $138 million in sales last year; falling far short of the projected $500-$800 million in annual sales that it was expected to yield when it was first brought to market. If Wyeth gains approval for CAP, expect Tygacil sales to soar.

In other regulatory news, FDA granted Wyeth “fast-track approval” for a new version of its market-leading pediatric pneumococcal vaccine called Prevnar. The new 13-valent formulation will provide protection against 13 different pneumococcal serotypes. The older version only provided protection against 7 serotypes. Wyeth hopes to complete its filing for pediatric use of the new Prevnar vaccine in early 2009. Prevnar is Wyeth’s second-leading product with sales of about $2.5 billion in 2007.  

The new Prevnar vaccine will likely go head-to-head with GlaxoSmithKline’s new 10-valent pneumococcal vaccine  called Synflorix^Tm which is in late stage clinical development and is currently being reviewed for marketing approval in the EU. Unlike Wyeth’s vaccine, Synflorix^Tm  was found to be effective in protecting against otitis media (ear infections) caused by Haemophilus influenzae.

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (avoid Collegeville, PA)!!!!!!!!

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

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
• Share Link

US Food and Drug Administration regulators announced on Friday that it will take three months longer than expected to decide whether Entereg, a treatment for post-operative ileus being co-developed by GlaxoSmithKline, will receive marketing approval. The drug was originally supposed to be reviewed for an up-or-down decision on Feb. 10.

Entereg is being co-developed with Pennsylvania-based Adolor Corporation. Post-operative ileus affects patients after bowel surgery. Symptoms include constipation and other gastrointestinal dysfunction.

An FDA advisory panel recommended approval in January but said Adolor needed to come up with a better plan to manage long term use of the drug. FDA regulators are concerned about safety data showing that long term use of Entereg can have adverse cardiovascular effects.

Adolor has submitted a new risk-management plan to the FDA, which will take the extra three months to review it.  GlaxoSmithKline will split the revenue from any U.S. sales of Entereg with Adolor and is responsible for commercialization of the drug outside the country.

Until next time…

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

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

Last December, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked GlaxoSmithKline for additional information related to its cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix. The company has yet to reply to unspecified queries in the FDA's "complete response letter" that it received last December.

Many analysts believe Cervarix is now unlikely to be launched until 2009 at the earliest. GSK won European regulatory approval last July for the vaccine and had originally anticipated a US launch by the start of this year. However, FDA requested clarification after GSK's submission last April based on interim clinical data that the submitted from its most comprehensive five-year clinical trial for the vaccine. Financial analysts believe that FDA concerns may center on GSK's proprietary AS04 adjuvant that is used  in Cervarix to improve the effectiveness of the vaccine.

The delay has been a serious blow to GSK’s efforts to generate fresh product sales and catch up with Gardasil, the rival HPV vaccine developed by Merck & Co, which is available in the US and Europe.

I wonder whether the delay at FDA is really based on legitimate regulatory and scientific concerns. As you may recall, Merck launched a flat-out, take-no-prisoners lobbying campaign to get State and Federal legislators to mandate that all girls 10-21 years old be vaccinated with Gardasil. While Merck abruptly abandoned its lobbying efforts last fall after it came under fire from various legislative and regulatory sources, I can’t help but wonder whether Merck achieved its intended objectives anyway—to keep Cervarix out of the US market as long as possible so that Merck can capture a majority share of the lucrative American cervical cancer market.

Until next time….

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

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

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
• Share Link

Geneva-based Covalence published its third annual ethical reputation ranking, giving the best ranked companies as well as those companies which have made the most progress in 2007.

Best EthicalQuote Score and Best EthicalQuote Progress are given by confronting positive and negative news. Best Reported Performance is calculated by quantifying positive news only – it shows how companies report on their ethical performance without considering criticisms and demands.

Best EthicalQuote Score

1. GlaxoSmithKline
2. Johnson & Johnson
3. Bristol Myers Squibb
4. Abbott
5. Novartis
6. Roche
7. Boehringer Ingelheim
8. Astra Zeneca
9. Pfizer
10. Sanofi Aventis

Best EthicalQuote Progress

1. GlaxoSmithKline
2. Abbott
3. Johnson & Johnson
4. Sanofi Aventis
5. Boehringer Ingelheim
6. Schering Plough
7. Takeda
8. Astra Zeneca
9. Bristol Myers Squibb
10. Amgen

Best Reported Performance

1. GlaxoSmithKline
2. Abbott
3. Novartis
4. Wyeth
5. Merck & Co Inc
6. Pfizer
7. Johnson & Johnson
8. Eli Lilly
9. Sanofi Aventis
10. Astra Zeneca

Finally, some good news for GSK in 2007!!!!

Until next time...

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

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

The New York times reported today

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

GlaxoSmithKline announced today

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

The New York Times reported today that an independent study that analyzed thousands of older people with diabetes found that those treated with the widely used drug Avandia had significantly elevated risks of heart attack and death.

According to the Times article, the finding, published on Tuesday, in this month’s Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), could rekindle the debate about whether Avandia, a controversial treatment for Type 2 Diabetes, should remain on the market. Earlier studies drew similar links between Avandia and cardiac risks.

The new study concludes that Avandia users had a 60 percent increased risk of heart failure, a 40 percent increased risk of heart attacks and a 30 percent increased risk of death compared with patients taking other oral diabetes medicines.

Sales of the drug, formerly a $3.4 billion product globally, have declined sharply since June 2007 when an article appears in the  questioning the drug's safety.

Not good news for GSK. The big question now is whether the company ought to cut its losses and take Avandia off the market or continue to squeeze as much money out of the product until lawsuits begin to accumulate.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (not at GSK)!!!!!!!!!!!

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

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
• Share Link