Why Big Mergers Are Never Good For Pharmaceutical Company Employees

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

 

Pfizer Update: A New CEO, A Shrinking R&D Budget and 3500 Fewer Employees

Many industry insiders and financial analysts were pleased when former Pfizer CEO Jeffrey Kindler abruptly departed the company last December. Most felt that the company had grown too large after three mega-mergers and acquisitions (Warner Lambert, Pharmacia and most recently Wyeth) in the past decade or so. Pfizer bought Wyeth in late 2009 for $67 billion with the hope that it bolster the company’s drug development pipeline and replace vanishing Lipitor revenue (the move has not paid off which may explain Kindler unexpected departure).

Further, Pfizer’s best selling (and world leading) cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor is due to lose patent protection in 2012. Lipitor had $10.7 billion in sales last year. This, along with the loss of patent protection for Viagra and a few other Pfizer prescription drugs, presumably left new CEO Ian Read, little choice but to slash R&D spending by close to $2 billion. Consequently, the company today announced it would close its research facility in Sandwich, England (which developed Viagra) and eliminate most of its 2,400 employees. An additional 1,000 employees at its research center in Groton, CT will either be offered transfers to its Cambridge, MA facility or layed off.

The elimination of 3500 Pfizer R&D employees begs the question “who will do the research to discover new drugs?” Not surprisingly, Pfizer’s answer is to outsource the work to Contract Research Organizations like Covance, Charles Rivers Laboratories and Parexel International Corp. Interestingly, much of this work is conducted by scientists who work outside of the US. And, if this down sizing trend continues how will the US ever get its unemployment rate below 10 percent?

Pfizer, like most other major US pharmaceutical companies, is no stranger to massive downsizing. The company alone has layed off over 19,000 employees over the past three years. And, unlike contractions in the life sciences industry in the past, I highly doubt that many of these R&D positions will be reinstated in the future. With this in mind, I highly recommend that those of you who were considering industrial R&D careers have a plan B or possibly a plan C to fall back on.

Until next time...

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

 

Tis the Season....Pfizer's CEO Abruptly Announces His Departure

Late last week, Merck appointed Ken Frazier, a lawyer, to be the company’s next CEO. Frazier’s appointment, while expected, was historical because he was the first African American tapped to be the CEO of a major pharmaceutical company. Industry insiders contend that Frazier’s unlikely ascension is a tribute to his affability, PR prowess and ability to successfully use his considerable legal skills to navigate Merck through its troubled Vioxx era. 

On the other hand, industry analysts and Pfizer shareholders have been less enamored of the performance of Jeffrey B. Kindler, another lawyer, who has led the company since 2006 when its former CEO Hank McKinnell Jr tried to single-handedly destroy the world’s largest drug maker. Kindler joined Pfizer in 2002 as its chief counsel after working at General Electric and McDonalds—clearly a man with little or no previous pharmaceutical industry experience. While critics contend that Kindler did a laudable job after stepping into the breech, there was consensus among a majority of Pfizer shareholders that it was time for a change at the top.

In a statement Sunday, Kindler announced that he wanted to “recharge my batteries, spend some rare time with my family and prepare for the next challenge in my career.” During his tenure, Kindler oversaw the acquisition and merger of Pfizer and Wyeth and successfully oversaw a settlement for illegal marketing of the painkiller Bextra which included a $1.3 billion criminal fine: the largest health care fraud case and criminal fine for a pharmaceutical company in US history.

The reason for Kindler’s unexpected and sudden departure is likely the impending patent expiry (2011) for its top selling cholesterol drug Lipitor (Pfizer acquired Lipitor after purchasing Warner Lambert Pharmaceuticals in the mid 1990s). Recent financial reports indicate that Lipitor accounted for $11.4 billion of Pfizer’s $50 billion in sales last year or 23% of its revenue. Most industry analysts agree that navigating Pfizer in a world without Lipitor will require an individual with many years of pharmaceutical industry experience and moxy.

To that end, Pfizer announced that Ian Read, currently head of the company’s biopharmaceutical operations will immediately take over as CEO. According to a profile on Forbes.com, Read is:

Senior Vice President; Group President, Pfizer Biopharmaceutical Businesses since October 2009. Previously, he was President Worldwide Pharmaceutical Operations from August 2006 until October 2009. Mr. Read has held various positions of increasing responsibility in pharmaceutical operations. He previously served as Area President for the Europe, Canada, Africa and Middle East and Latin America regions and Senior Vice President of the Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Group. Mr. Read was elected a Vice President of Pfizer Inc. in April 2001.

Also, Pfizer’s board of directors said that it would elect a new chairman (another position vacated by Kindler’s departure) at a meeting within the next two weeks.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

 

Post Merger: Are Things Getting Any Better at Pfizer?

Pfizer’s acquisition of Wyeth was supposed to provide the company with expertise—that was sorely lacking—in biologics and biotechnology products. While it is too early to ascertain whether or not the Wyeth acquisition will “bear fruit”, today’s announcement that Pfizer is suspending all clinical trials of tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody treatment for osteoarthritis, suggests that the company may need more help than expected to develop new biological products. According to a statement, Pfizer’s immediate worldwide suspension of the clinical trials followed a small number of reports of tanezumab patients experience worsening of osteoarthritis leading to joint replacement.

Things have not gone well for Pfizer lately. Earlier this year the company abandoned late stage clinical development of an Alzheimer drug called dimebon that it had licensed from a smaller specialty pharmaceutical company. Also in 2010, Pfizer halted clinical development of Sutent for breast and liver cancer after it failed to meet principal goals in two Phase III trials. Finally, several years ago, the company killed late stage clinical development of a highly touted new cholesterol drug torcetrapib (Lipitor’ successor) after it failed to meet clinical endpoints in a pivotal Phase III trial.

Not surprisingly, Wall Street analysts are not particularly enthusiastic about Pfizer’s future. Many consider Pfizer to have one of the worst pipelines among major pharmaceutical companies. Also, many believe that productivity at the company is lacking in almost all therapeutic areas. In defense of the productivity of Pfizer R&D scientists (those who still have jobs), it is extremely difficult to remain productive or focused when major acquisitions e.g. Warner Lambert, Pharmacia and Wyeth occur every few years. As I have stated numerous times before, bigger isn’t always necessarily better. Here’s hoping that the Wyeth acquisition can rescue Pfizer from its current “death spiral” and return some value to its shareholders.

Until next time...

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

 

Pfizer-Wyeth: Looks Like a Done Deal

Pfizer's board of directors voted on Sunday evening  to acquire Wyeth for $65 billion.  While this may help to assuage some of Pfizer's short term financial problems, like the loss of  Lipitor in 2011,the deal will not help the combined company in the long run. 

The deal will undoubtedly lead to massive layoffs at both Pfizer and Wyeth--a time when our economy cannot afford much more job loss.  Further, it will diminish competition, reduce the need for more scientists and ultimately diminish America's standing in the life sciences. 

If I were a Pfizer or Wyeth employee the first thing that I would do on Monday morning would be: update my resume, contact as many  recruiters as I can and find a new job before the layoffs begin. I think the era of severance packages is over!

Until next time... 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

Why a Pfizer-Wyeth Merger Doesn't Make Sense

Pfizer is the largest pharmaceutical company in the world. It was able to garner that distinction by going on a decade-long buying spree that began in the mid 1990s. To date, Pfizer has acquired Warner Lambert, Pharmacia and a host of smaller specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Despite these acquisitions, which yielded top selling blockbuster drugs like Lipitor and Celebrex, Pfizer’s stock has never performed up to analyst’s expectations. In fact, while it’s smaller and more nimble pharmaceutical competitor’s stock prices were soaring, Pfizer’s stock price was either flat or falling. While conventional wisdoms suggest that “bigger is always better” this has proven not to be the case when companies, like Pfizer, attempt to win greater market share through mergers and acquisition and also loss sight of their core business.

In my opinion, Pfizer’s acquisition of Warner Lambert in the mid 1990s was a well executed, strategic move—the transaction gave Pfizer rights to Lipitor, currently the world’s top selling prescription drug. At that time, Pfizer’s internal drug discovery pipeline was essentially running on empty and it needed a blockbuster to insure its future growth. Despite the benefits of the Warner Lambert deal, it took Pfizer many years and hundreds of millions of dollars to fully integrate the two companies into a fully functional one.

Several years later, Pfizer acquired Pharmacia to gain access to Celebrex, a Cox-2 inhibitor that had the potential of becoming a blockbuster drug to treat inflammation and chronic pain. Unfortunately, Pfizer’s ROI on Celebrex hit a sales-stopping road block when the safety of Cox-2 inhibitors was called into question after Merck withdraw its Cox-2 inhibitor, Vioxx from the market in 2005. While Pfizer directly benefited from Celebrex sales, it again took the company many years, at great expense, to fully integrate Pharmacia into Pfizer’s day-to-day operations.

During its decade long expansion, Pfizer’s internal drug discovery programs were largely ignored and had begun to fail largely because of management’s inexorable focus on acquiring blockbuster drugs rather than developing them internally. In the early 2000s, recognizing that blockbuster drugs were becoming harder to purchase, the company bet its financial future on a new cholesterol-lowering drug called torcetrapib (which, by the way, was developed by Pfizer scientists). The buzz surrounding torcetrapib—a potential blockbuster drug that was expected to replace Lipitor—reached a fever pitch in 2006 as Pfizer’s stock price soared. Unfortunately, Pfizer was forced to abandoned clinical development of torcetrapib in late 2006 because it exhibited potential life-threatening side effects in pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials This failure, coupled with the impending loss of  patent protection for several of its top selling drugs, most notably Lipitor, has placed Pfizer in its current precarious financial situation.

Like many of its competitors, Pfizer believes that biotechnology is the “next big thing” and its executives have publicly disclosed their intentions to get into “protein-based therapeutics.” While this strategy may represent a way for Pfizer to correct its current downward trajectory, the company, as a whole, lacks the requisite biopharmaceutical experience and expertise to commercially compete in this space. To obviate this, Pfizer has hinted that it would consider purchasing a large biotechnology company or a pharmaceutical company that has biotechnology products on the market.  Enter Wyeth—another pharmaceutical company that is trying to reinvent itself as a biopharmaceutical company. However, unlike Pfizer, Wyeth markets and sells two successful biotechnology products—Enbrel, a treatment for rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis and Prevnar a blockbuster anti-pneumococcal vaccine. However, it is important to note that neither Enbrel nor Prevnar were developed at Wyeth. Further, while Wyeth has achieved commercial success with both Enbrel and Prevnar, several of its non-biotechnology drugs have recently hit regulatory snags and their future approval is uncertain.

On the surface, a Pfizer-Wyeth merger may make sense—both companies are struggling, Pfizer needs an entrée into biotech and Wyeth has marketed biotechnology products and biomanufacturing capability. However, a closer examination of the deal reveals some major flaws. First, Wyeth’s internal biotechnology discovery pipeline is sparse (although it does have a few, niche protein-based products in early stage clinical development). While Enbrel sales are increasing and consistently have topped $1 billion in annual sales in recent years, Wyeth only owns the non-US rights to Enbrel (Amgen owns the US rights). Second, Prevnar is coming off patent soon and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has developed a competing vaccine that is expected perform as well or better than Wyeth’s next generation version of Prevnar. Finally, Prevnar has been a huge money maker for Wyeth because there are currently no other approved pneumococcal vaccines on the market. The introduction of GSK’s competing vaccine will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the sale of Prevnar and its successor. If neither company has strong internal drug discovery pipelines and both lack sufficient expertise in biopharmaceutical product development, why are Pfizer and Wyeth actively engaged in M&A discussions?

For the past several months, rumors have been circulating that Pfizer might acquire Amgen. While a Pfizer-Amgen deal makes more sense to me that a Pfizer-Wyeth one, I don’t think that acquiring another large pharmaceutical company is in the best interests of Pfizer shareholders (they are still paying for the past two mergers!). That said, if Pfizer does acquire Wyeth, the combined entity will still hold the distinction of being the world’s largest pharmaceutical company—at least there is that!

Until next time...

 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (hope that a merger doesn’t take place—there will be layoffs!)

 

Pfizer Axes Another 800 Research Scientist Jobs

Long rumored, Pfizer announced yesterday that it will eliminate another 800 research jobs outside of its six core therapeutic areas: cancer, pain, inflammation, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and schizophrenia. The new cuts represent 5 to 8 percent of Pfizer’s approximately 10,000 researchers worldwide. According to a company spokesperson, the company will continue to evaluate its current staffing to make decisions that are consistent with its future goals. In short, expect more layoffs to occur in the near future.

Industry analysts expect additional cuts to occur in R&D and Pfizer’s dwindling sales force. To date, Pfizer has eliminated about 10,000 jobs, mostly in R&D and sales. Pfizer became the world’s largest pharmaceutical after going on a 12 year buying spree that began in 1996 after its acquisition of Warner Lambert, the company that developed the blockbuster anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor. The company currently employs about 85,000 people worldwide.

Wall Street rewarded Pfizer’s decision to layoff more scientists by pushing its stock share price up 1.3% yesterday. Rewarding a company for eliminating one of its most important and valuable assets has never made sense to me. But, then again, I am a scientist not an MBA-toting Wall Street analyst—what do I know?

Until next time…

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

 

Late Breaking News: Pfizer May Cut More Jobs Next Month

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

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

 

Until next time…

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

 

 

Pfizer and Ranbaxy Settle Lipitor Patent Dispute

As many of you may know, Ranbaxy was involved in a bitter patent dispute with Pfizer over Lipitor, Pfizer’s blockbuster multibillion, dollar anti LDL-cholesterol drug. Ranbaxy was challenging the validity of Pfizer’s intellectual property estate for Lipitor which would have extended patent protection for the drug until 2013 or longer. The patent dispute began after Ranbaxy filled an ANDA with the US Food and Drug Administration to sell generic Lipitor after uncontested Lipitor patents expire in early 2010.

Conventional wisdom suggested that Pfizer would ultimately lose the patent dispute and that Ranbaxy would be able to immediately flood the market with a much cheaper generic version of Lipitor. This would have an enormous negative impact on Pfizer’s financial stability and its future (Lipitor had $12.8 billion in sales in 2007). Nevertheless, untilDaiicho-Sankyo announced its intention to acquire Ranbaxy last week, Pfizer was willing to gamble and run the risk of losing the lawsuit. Apparently, Ranbaxy impending sale was enough of an impetus for Pfizer to settle the patent dispute which has grown increasingly acrimonious over the past year or so.

According to agreement (which needs to be approved by the US Federal Trade Commission), Pfizer was able to get Ranbaxy  to agree to delay the release of generic Lipitor until November 2011 — up to 20 months later than many analysts had been expecting (some insiders believed that generic Lipitor could reach the market as early as March 2010). Further, as part of the agreement, Pfizer will allow Ranbaxy to sell its version of Lipitor in Australia, Canada, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden two to four months before Liptor’s patents expire. This is likely the sweet part of the deal for Ranbaxy because all of the above mentioned markets are top sellers for anti-cholesterol drugs. Finally, because Ranbaxy was the first to file an ANDA for generic Lipitor with the FDA, it will get 6 months of market exclusivity guaranteed (in the Hatch Waxman Act) to a generic manufacturer that is first to file for generic production of a brand name drug nearing patent expiry.   However, after quickly perusing the terms of the deal, I think that it more closely resembles an authorized generics deal rather than a “true” competitive generics launch.

Currently, Lipitor costs about $2.50 to $3 a day. Analysts predict that Ranbaxy can sell its generic Lipitor for about 75 cents to $1 a day, or as low as 10 cents a day at some discount pharmacies. The potential drastic price reduction coupled with Daiichi-Sankyo’s intention to purchase Ranbaxy (which would have provided Ranbaxy with more money underwrite and press on with IP lawsuit, it what I believe forced Pfizer’s hand to act as quickly as it did to settle the suit. The deal, if approved, allows Pfizer to dodge a near fatal financial bullet and will provide it with a potentially lucrative revenue stream from it authorized generics deal that it struck with Ranbaxy. 

Nevertheless, given the financial stakes associated with the Lipitor franchise, it may make more sense for Pfizer to purchase Ranbaxy rather than enter into the pending deal. Also, a Ranbaxy purchase would allow Pfizer to enter the biologics and biotechnology fields—something that Pfizer executives have been talking about publicly to insure the company’s future. Like most other pharmaceutical generics manufacturers, Ranbaxy has active research programs on biosimilar and other biotechnology products. If I was driving the boat at Pfizer I would offer Ranbaxy a lucrative counteroffer to block its sale to Daiichi-Sankyo. I don’t know—the deal just makes sense to me. That said, not many recruiters have been calling me about CEO jobs lately!!!!!!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

Word on the Street: Pfizer May Counteroffer for Ranbaxy

Rumor has it that Pfizer may offer a counteroffer to acquire India-based generics manufacturer Ranbaxy. As you may recall, Japan’s Daiichi Sankyo agreed earlier in the week to pay about $4.6 billion for a controlling interest in Ranbaxy. According to reports many analysts expect Pfizer to attempt to queer to the Daiichi-Ranbaxy deal because “it is battling Ranbaxy in about 18 countries on patent rights of Lipitor, the largest selling cholesterol drug in the world. Lipitor has annual sales of $13 billion. In most countries the patent on the drug will expire starting 2011.”  Ranbaxy has won favorable court decisions on Lipitor in many countries including in the US, the largest drug market in the world, which accounts for 28 per cent of the global generic market estimated at $72 billion.

I tend to agree with the pundits. Pfizer has a lousy pipeline and its recent clinical trial record is horrendous. Consequently, the company must hang on (as long as possible and at any cost) to its blockbuster brands to avoid financial ruin.

Stay tuned for late-breaking news and updates!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

Direct-to-Consumer Drug (DTC) Pharmaceutical Advertising Really is Big Business!

No doubt that many of you already know that DTC advertising is an effective way for pharmaceutical companies to “push” their drugs. However, when I saw the amount of money that was spent on DTC in 2007 I was shocked! In 2007 alone, drug companies spent $5,375,117,382 on advertising. Yes, that's $5.375 billion dollars (think of how many research grants could have been funded or how much money could have been spent on universal healthcare!).  The aggregate ROI for 25 pharma companies examined was impressive–totaling about $32 billion or roughly 7-fold!

A table published by Consumer Reports AdWatch highlights 25 of the biggest spenders along with their sales, giving an indication of how much their ad spending has paid off —or not! The drugs that received the biggest bang for the buck are bolded. Despite the conflict of interest and false advertising DTC flap over Lipitor, it still managed to have the third best return among the 25 products analyzed.

Drug

Approved for1

DTC advertising
20072

Retail sales
20073

Sales per ad dollar spent

Lunesta

Insomnia

$294,180,616

$712,740,000

$2.42

Ambien CR

Insomnia

$204,065,972

$876,028,000

$4.29

Cymbalta

Anxiety, depression, diabetic neuropathy pain

$183,336,687

$1,732,827,000

$9.45

Lipitor

High cholesterol

$180,866,960

$6,165,531,000

$34.09

Plavix

Stroke risk reduction

$174,942,656

$3,082,712,000

$17.62

Rozerem

Insomnia

$171,466,210

$116,658,000

$0.68

Cialis

Erectile dysfunction

$151,649,663

$453,233,000

$2.99

Vytorin

High cholesterol

$140,715,035

$1,938,882,000

$13.78

Nasonex

Seasonal allergies

$131,220,183

$892,534,000

$6.80

Advair Diskus

Asthma

$121,197,100

$3,390,766,000

$27.98

Boniva

Osteoporosis

$112,958,755

$404,109,000

$3.58

Zetia

High cholesterol

$110,357,144

$1,405,066,000

$12.73

Requip

Restless Legs Syndrome, Parkinson's disease

$106,271,994

$407,665,000

$3.84

Abilify

Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia

$105,768,412

$1,781,562,000

$16.84

Flomax

Enlarged prostate

$100,969,013

$1,002,163,000

$9.93

Nexium

Heartburn and GERD

$96,960,417

$4,355,901,000

$44.92

Valtrex

Herpes and shingles

$88,409,332

$1,395,313,000

$15.78

Spiriva

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

$84,002,514

$868,226,000

$10.34

Yaz

Contraceptive pill

$83,566,746

$254,592,000

$3.05

Viagra

Erectile dysfunction

$83,064,378

$824,946,000

$9.93

Lyrica

Fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain

$70,663,685

$1,000,069,000

$14.15

Chantix

Smoking cessation

$63,979,755

$764,723,000

$11.95

Singulair

Asthma and seasonal allergies

$63,289,786

$2,863,326,000

$45.24

Celebrex

Pain from conditions like osteoarthritis

$55,230,236

$1,416,084,000

$25.64

Zyrtec

Seasonal allergies

$38,476,595

$1,302,807,000

$33.86

1Consumer Reports Consumer Drug Reference, 2008.
2Data compiled by Nielsen Media research, March 2008.
3Data provided by Drug Topics and Verispan, March 2008.


No wonder why everybody wants to work for a pharmaceutical company–despite the downsizing there is still substantial money to be made!

Until next time….

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

Pfizer Proves That Biggest Is Not Always Best

Pfizer the world’s largest and least innovative pharmaceutical company  announced yesterday that its profits dropped by 18% last year. The company attributed the loss to reductions in the sale of its blockbuster anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor, which is slated to lose patent protection in the next few years.

Pfizer, which has about $25 billion in cash, has been on something of a buying spree the past couple of years. The company is desperately trying get into biotechnology (too little, too late?) and believes, as it always has, that the best way to enter a new therapeutic area is to buy its way into it! To that end, Pfizer has already purchased two “biotech” companies in 2007 (more purchases are likely on the way) and entered into financially-lucrative, long term research collaborations with several others. Although this strategy has previously worked for Pfizer in the short term, it has proved to be financially disastrous for the company in the long term. Nevertheless, Pfizer said it still expects earnings this year to grow about 11%, due largely to a cost-cutting program that has eliminated 25,000 jobs, or 23% of its work force since 2004.

Until Pfizer executives realize that a robust internal drug discovery and development program is the key to success, Pfizer will continue to be the world’s biggest pharmaceutical company with a constantly flagging stock price.

Until next time….

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

Pfizer and Jarvik Part Company Over Heart-Wrenching Television Ad

I am old enough to remember when the artificial heart was invented and used to extend the life of Barney Clark, a dentist in Seattle, WA. It was a phenomenal accomplishment back in the day. So, it seemed appropriate to me that Robert Jarvik, the guy who invented the artificial heart, appeared in Pfizer’s Lipitor ads as a spokesperson to promote heart health. However, a Congressional committee examining consumer drug advertising has questioned whether the Lipitor ads may have misrepresented Dr. Jarvik and his credentials to promote the drug.

Although Dr. Jarvik has a medical degree, he is not a cardiologist nor is he licensed to practice medicine! Further, one television ads depicts Dr. Jarvik as an accomplished rower but the ad used a body double for him and, as it turns out, he does not even row! To make matters worse, a former colleague of Jarvik contends that he is not the actual inventor of the artificial heart. He suggested that the distinction belongs to Jarvik’s mentor Willem J. Kolff and his associate Tetsuzo Akutsu at the University of Utah. Go figure! Despite the firestorm, Pfizer continues to air the television ad ( I saw it just a few days ago).

Pfizer has spent more than $258 million advertising Lipitor (a cholesterol-lowering statin) since January 2006, most of it on the Jarvik campaign in an attempt to protect Lipitor from generic competition. Lipitor is the world’s best selling drug and generated $12.7 billion in revenues in 2007. While Lipitor has patent protection until 2010, some patients have already switched to a generic version of a competing cholesterol drug Zocor. According to published reports Pfizer agreed to pay Jarvik about $1.35 million under a two-year contract that expires next month. I think it is safe to assume that Jarvik will not appear in any future Lipitor ads.

As many of you may know, drug companies FDA is not required to review direct-to-consumer ads before they are aired to the American public. While some companies request FDA review of their promotional materials before they are used in advertising campaigns, the vast majority of companies do not. Unfortunately, because of this regulatory loophole, direct-to-consumer advertising has turned into something of a cat and mouse game–there are only consequences and penalties if you get caught misrepresenting or not fully disclosing information about your products.

In my opinion, Pfizer’s misrepresentation of Jarvik’s credentials (and Jarvik’s complicity) is unethical and unconscionable. More importantly, it demonstrates how easily and willing companies are to “bend the truth” to preserve blockbuster drug franchises that generate billions of dollars in annual revenues. I think that what Pfizer did was wrong and shameful. The company should be fined and sanctioned for the Lipitor campaign. That said, it is likely that the size of the fine levied by FDA will pale in comparison to Lipitor revenues generated by the Jarvik campaign. I believe that it is time for Congress and FDA close the loopholes in current direct-to-consumer advertising regulations–the safety and health of the American public depends on it!

Until next time….

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