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

Big pharma continues to lament the increased scrutiny being imposed on it by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Like it or not, the agency’s directive is to insure that the drugs that it approves are safe and effective for the American public. And, for the most part, the agency does its job and frequently catches companies that attempt to break the rules.

To that end, an article that appeared in FiercePharma last October noted that eleven big pharma companies had paid a total of over $6.0 billion in fines to the US government over the last two years or so. The biggest losers include Eli Lilly paid over $1.4 billion in fines because of alleged illegal marketing of its anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa and Pfizer which paid $2.3 billion for marketing missteps with three drugs including Bextra (pain), Geodon (schizophrenia) , Lyrica (neuropathic pain) and Zyvox (antibiotic). 

More recently, GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay $750 million fine in a whistle blower lawsuit that alleged that the company had sold "adulterated products" manufactured in a Cidra Puerto Rico production facility. Also, the company announced last February that it intends to pay $3.4 billion to settle lawsuits alleging the improper promotion and sale of several of its products including the blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia and Paxil (depression).

The article also included a timeline of some of the other major settlements that have recently taken place (seen below)

Novartis
With: U.S. Attorney's office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
When: Sept. 30, 2010
Infraction: Novartis agreed to a $422.5 million settlement with the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for its off-label promotion of Trileptal and other allegations against Diovan, Exforge, Sandostatin, Tekturna and Zelnorm.

Forest Labs
With: Dept. of Justice
When: Sept. 15, 2010
Infraction: After marketing Levothroid, an unapproved thyroid drug, Forest Labs received its penalty, to the tune of $313 million. The settlement also covered Forest's off-label use of Celexa for children's use.

Allergan
With: Dept. of Justice
When: Sept. 1, 2010
Infractions: Allergan's $600 million Department of Justice settlement was broken into two parts: $375 million in fines and $225 million in civil penalties, all of which stemmed from its off-label use of Botox for headaches, pain management and cerebral palsy.

Elan
With: U.S. Attorney's Office in Massachusetts
When: July 15, 2010
Infraction: The Irish drugmakers received its $203.5 million fine for its marketing tactics of Zonegran, an epilepsy drug. Also, the company's U.S. branch pled guilty to a misdemeanor and the company will enter into a corporate integrity agreement with the HHS Inspector General.

Johnson & Johnson
With: Department of Justice
When: April 29, 2010
Infraction: Though J&J's more infamous woes stem from its phantom recalls, two of the troubled drug maker’s subsidiaries received a $81 million penalty for off-label promotions of Topamax, an epilepsy drug.

AstraZeneca
With: U.S. Attorney's office in Philadelphia
When: April 27, 2010
Infraction: In the same week as the J&J settlement, AstraZeneca was hit with a $520 million penalty for its antipsychotic, Seroquel. The company misled doctors and patients about the drug's safety.

Despite concerted efforts by the US Food and Drug Agency to limit off-label promotion of prescription drugs, most pharma companies continue to see how far they can push the envelope before the agency catches up with them. Given the current budget woes facing FDA, don’t be surprised if the frequency of off label promotion and misrepresentation of prescriptions drugs continue to rise.

Until next time...

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

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

The pharmaceutical industry, not unlike all big business during the disastrous Bush Administration, was virtually unregulated. Bush and his cronies managed to accomplish this feat by destabilizing the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and essentially hamstringing any regulatory authority that it had. Not surprisingly, many pharmaceutical companies saw an opportunity to increase their bottom lines by engaging in off label marketing of many of their approved drugs—a practice clearly forbidden by the agency. 

Despite the fact that off label marketing is illegal, many big pharma companies knowingly and willfully engaged in the practice. Luckily, the Obama administration has reinvigorated and restored the regulatory powers at the agency and FDA is now aggressively investigating and punishing companies that had promoted off-label use of their products over the last decade.

The New York Times today reported that Novartis joins a growing list of pharmaceutical companies that have settled government investigations into health care fraud in the last few years, including Pfizer, which paid $2.3 billion; Eli Lilly, $1.4 billion; Allergan, $600 million; AstraZeneca, $520 million; Bristol-Myers Squibb, $515 million; and Forest Laboratories, $313 million. Pfizer, Lilly, Allergan and Forest pleaded guilty to crimes in the cases. The company was fined $422 million settle criminal and civil investigations into the marketing of the antiseizure medicine Trileptal and five other drugs. 

According to the article, the five other drugs involved in the civil settlement are Diovan, a hypertension drug that is the company’s top-selling product, at $6 billion last year; Sandostatin, a drug to treat a growth hormone disorder that had worldwide sales of $1.2 billion last year; Exforge, a hypertension drug that sold $671 million; Tekturna, a blood pressure medicine that sold $290 million; and Zelnorm, a medicine for irritable bowel syndrome and constipation that was later withdrawn from the United States market.

It is important to make a distinction between the practices of off-label drug use and off label marketing. As many of you may know, licensed US physicians are allowed to prescribe any FDA-approved drugs if they believe that their use will benefit patients. This is off-label drug use. However, in contrast, it is illegal for companies to actively promote or market approved drugs for therapeutic indications for which they have not received regulatory approval. This is off-label marketing and a strategy that has been used by companies to increase sales of approved products without having to spend money on expensive clinical trials that are required to prove safety and efficacy for a new drug to gain regulatory approval. While this may be a backdoor strategy for companies to boost product sales, it clearly puts patients at risk because the actual safety and efficacy for the indications has not been adequately tested and proven.

Many drug makers have been critical of FDA’s increase scrutiny of drug safety and have argued that it has negatively impacted the regulatory approval rates of new experimental medicines. While this may be troubling to many pharmaceutical executives, the FDA was created to insure that all approved drugs are safe and effective and the risk to Americans who use them is minimal. In other words, the agency is simply doing its job—something it was prevented from doing for the past eight years!

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

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

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

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