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

I suspect that many of you (after reading the title of this post) might be expecting another rant about the need for new antibiotics to treat infections caused by multiple drug resistant strains of bacteria. Sorry to disappoint you because that isn’t what this post is about. After reading and listening to several seemingly disparate radio and newspaper stories this morning, I decided to combine three different stories into a single post that touches on several common themes.

First, I heard a story on NPR this morning (while driving my daughter to middle school) about FDA’s initiative to require that oysters harvested from the Gulf of Mexico be pretreated before they can be served in restaurants and eaten raw. The reason for this initiative is that a majority of live oysters harvested from the Gulf of Mexico are usually contaminated with the opportunistic bacterial pathogen Vibrio vulnificus and other Vibrio species. Approximately, 15 or more immunocompromised patents die each year and many more get ill after ingesting raw Louisiana oysters infected with V. vulnificus. FDA, (which for those of you who don’t know also regulates the food and cosmetic industries in addition to the drug and devices industries), spent the past few years crafting regulatory guidelines that called for mandatory  treatment (irradiation or pasteurization) of oysters from the Gulf of Mexico before they are served “raw” at restaurants and other commercial food operations. The regulations were to be implemented sometime in 2011. While many of the larger commercial Louisiana-based raw oyster producers already pre-treat their oysters before they are sold to restaurants, the pretreatment requirement would be economically onerous and challenging to “mom and pop” oyster business throughout Louisiana. Not surprisingly, given the economic devastation caused by hurricane Katrina several years ago, FDA was assaulted by oyster manufacturing trade groups and Louisiana politicians and lobbyists asking the agency to delay implementation of the new rules. Unfortunately, FDA officials caved and yielded to the onslaught and agreed to conduct a pilot study designed to assess the effectiveness of the program before forcing the new rules on the Gulf Coast oyster industry.  For the record, I love eating raw oysters and the thought of eating a so-called “raw oysters” that have previously been pasteurized or irradiated seems unseemly and unappealing to me. However, FDA’s mission is to provide Americans with a safe food supply and to minimize the incidence of any public health risks associated with or caused by it. The fact that FDA was cajoled and yielded to calls that that the agency placed economic concerns ahead of known public health risks is lamentable and truly regrettable. Rather than spending excessive amounts of money on lobbying efforts to delay appropriate public health initiatives, the Gulf Coast oyster industry and its trade groups and lobbyist ought to consider investing in efforts to combat global warming and Gulf of Mexico water pollution, which in turn, would reduce the bacterial load of live oysters harvested from the Gulf of Mexico and serve to raw oyster enthusiasts. 

On a more upbeat note about infectious diseases (sort of), there was an article in today’s Science Times which reported the results of a study that linked exposure to five so-called common pathogens, Chalmydia pneumoniae, Helicobacter pylori, cytomegalovirus and Herpes simplex types 1 and 2 to increased risk of stroke. According to the article, each of these pathogens may persist after acute infections and contribute to an ongoing chronic low level infection. These low level infections coupled with chronic inflammation of blood vessels induced by the infections may contribute to the increased likelihood of stroke. While intriguing, authors of the study warn that their results don’t establish a cause-and-effect relationship between these infections and stroke. More research will be required to determine whether or not there is a definitive link between these infections and the incidence of stroke..

Speaking of stroke and heart attacks, I want to turn my attention to the clinical trial results reported yesterday by Merck & Co about its cholesterol-lowering drugs Zetia and Vytorin. As you may recall, a brouhaha erupted about a year ago about whether or not the cholesterol-lowering effects of  Merck’s  blockbuster drugs Zetia and Vytorin (which is a combination of Zetia and the statin Zocor) actually protected patients from increased risk of heart attack and stroke. The results of the long awaited study which were presented at an American Heart Association meeting on Monday support previous findings of two earlier clinical studies which showed that despite lowering LDL cholesterol levels, Zetia and Vytorin don’t reduce the risk of heart attack or stroke in at-risk patients. 

In the study patients who were at risk for cardiovascular disease were treated with statins in combination with either Zetia or Niaspan (a prescription, controlled-release formulation of over-the-counter niacin supplements that exhibits cholesterol-lowering properties). Patients who received statins plus Niaspan had decreased thickening of the walls (caused by atherosclerosis) of the carotid artery whereas those treated with Zetia failed to inhibit arterial plaque buildup. In other words, Zetia (and Vytorin) which are expensive prescription drugs don’t provide any health benefits beyond those offered by statins, many of which (including Merck’s Zocor) are available as low-cost generics.

Despite the lack of any clear medical or health benefits, sales of Zetia and Vytorin generated about $4.8 billion in sales last year. You would think that Merck and its stakeholders would be devastated by the results of the new study. However, they were actually happy about the news—they were fearful (based on data from the earlier studies) that Zetia may actually increase the risk of heart attack and stroke! What is particularly revealing (and disturbing) about the whole Zetia/Vytorin story is that Merck is relieved that an expensive drug that it heavily promoted as being beneficial and safe is in reality not beneficial. When did it become acceptable that the only requirement for FDA approval of prescription drugs is safety? Doesn’t a drug have to also show a positive therapeutic and clinical effect (over previously approved drugs for the same indication) before it wins regulatory approval? The fact that physicians continue to prescribe ineffective, multi-billion dollar drugs like Zetia instead of cheaper and effective generic versions of cholesterol-lowering drugs another troubling sign of  our current economic situation and the need for healthcare reform in the US.

Finally, for you patent aficionados, there was an illuminating and incisive op-ed piece in today’s NY Times that shed light on the problems with the current US patent approval process. While I have substantial experience in this area, I learned more from reading this article than I did from the many years that I worked closely with patent and intellectual property attorneys. This article is a must read for those persons considering careers in intellectual property and patent law and entrepreneurial individuals who are interested in starting up life sciences companies.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Live and Learn!!!!

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

I am attending the Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students (ABRCMS) in sunny Phoenix, AZ where I will be providing career development guidance to undergraduate and graduate students. Ironically, given the dismal job prospects in the life sciences industry for entry level employees, I will be giving a talk on how to find a job!  Last year's meeting in Orlando was a great one and I expect this one to be just as good.

While I am on the road, it doesn't mean that I won't be keeping track of the goings on back in my neck of the woods. To that end, Merck announced today that it will keep Schering Plough's corporate headquaters in Kenilworth, NJ open. Merck announced the decision today after closing on the $7 billion deal yesterday. This is good news for the NJ residents who currently work at the Kenilworth site. New Jersey has been extremely hard hit by all of the pharmaceutical layoffs in the past few years. Unemployment continues to rise and things will not get any better since conservative Republican Chris Christie was elected governor on Tuesday (he plans on laying off massive numbers of state employees) once he takes office in 2010.

Johnson and Johnson, on the other hand, announced that it was closing research & development facilities in Radnor and Chesterbrook, PA and consolidating those operations at the company's Spring House site. The New Brunswick, N.J., company would not say how many jobs are at those locations now or how many would remain in Spring House after the move, which is to be completed by 2012. These closure come shortly after JnJ announced earlier this week that is was elimating ca 8,200 employees or roughly seven percent of its global workforce.

Let's hope that things begin to improve soon. 

Hat tip to the Pharmalot blog!

Until next time....

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

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

Johnson & Johnson announced today it would eliminate as many as 8,200 jobs, or 7% of its work force, to help the company cope with what it expects will be a slow economic recovery amid damped demand for drugs, medical devices and consumer products. J&J employs about 117, 000 workers globally. While the job cuts will be global, many losing their jobs will be outside of the US. 

J & J joins a growing list of pharmaceutical and life sciences companies that have announced new layoffs. Pfizer Inc., the world’s biggest drugmaker, plans to fire 19,000 workers following its acquisition of Wyeth and had already cut 10,000 positions since 2007. J&J began firing as many as 4,400 employees from its pharmaceutical and stent divisions in late 2007. Finally, Merck recently announced that it will be eliminating 16,000 workers after its merger with Schering Plough closes later this year.

J&J’s announcement is more bad news for New Jersey which is still reeling from the earlier loss of tens of thousands of pharmaceutical and life sciences jobs.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (forget New Jersey)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

Without fanfare, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) quietly announced today that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval for CERVARIX® [Human papillomavirus bivalent (types 16 and 18) vaccine, recombinant] for the prevention of cervical pre-cancers and cervical cancer associated with oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 for use in girls and young women (aged 10-25).

It has taken GSK over three years to garner US regulatory approval for CERVARIX® which has been approved and used in over 100 other countries in the world. Early "unspecified concerns" delayed approval and, as recently as two weeks, FDA delayed a decision despite recommendations from an advisory panel to approve the vaccine. Coincidentally, a week before the agency was expected to announce approval for the vaccine, a British girl died after she was vaccinated with Cervarix. While FDA spokespersons claimed that the girl’s death following vaccination had nothing to do with the delaying a decision on Cervarix, many industry pundits believe that the FDA was reluctant to approve the vaccine in light of the sensational media coverage in the UK surrounding the incident. After an autopsy was performed on the girl, British authorities announced that a massive cardiac tumor that had infiltrated one of her lungs, not Cervarix was responsible for her death.

Today’s approval of Cervarix provides American consumers with an alterative to Gardasil, Merck’s cervical cancer vaccine that was approved about two years ago. That said, the ability to protect girls and young women from the possibility of developing cervical cancer is more important than which of the two vaccines is used to induce immunity. I plan on immunizing my daughter when she is old enough!

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

The Belgian chemical manufacturer Solvay announced today that it had agreed to sell its pharmaceutical business unit to Abbott Pharmaceuticals for $6.6 billion. By purchasing Solvay, Abbott gains access to emerging markets in Eastern Europe and Asia along with new therapeutic areas, including hormone therapies and vaccines. Solvay's flu vaccine Influvac will give Abbott an entrant in the burgeoning vaccines market, which is currently dominated by European pharmaceutical giants like GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis.

Abbott already holds U.S. marketing rights for Solvay's Trilipix and TriCor, drugs which raise "good" HDL cholesterol while reducing triglycerides and "bad" LDL cholesterol.

Solvay's other top-selling drugs include the Parkinson's disease treatment Duodopa and hormone therapy drugs AndroGel and Duphaston. It is not clear whether or not the Solvay purchase will affect ongoing pharmaceutical operations or staffing decision in the US. However, I suspect that there will be management changes and layoffs in Europe.

In other news, Johnson & Johnson bought an 18 percent stake in Dutch biotechnology company Crucell NV, which is trying to develop a universal flu vaccine, while competitor Merck acquired the rights to sell Australia-based CSL Ltd.'s Afluria flu vaccine in the U.S.

The Solvay deal is the latest in a string of mergers and acquisitions, as cash-rich pharmaceutical companies race to acquire new products amid looming patent expiry on blockbuster drugs. Earlier this year Swiss drugmaker Roche acquired Genentech following similar deals uniting Pfizer Inc. and Wyeth, and Merck & Co. Inc. with Schering-Plough.

Expect more M&A activity in the life sciences sector before year’s end.

Until next time...

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

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) voted that clinical data support both the efficacy and safety of Cervarix®, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) cervical cancer vaccine.

In a press release, the company announced that “Cervarix was shown to be highly effective and well tolerated in girls and young women for the prevention of cervical pre-cancers and cervical cancer related to human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18, the two most common virus types that cause cervical cancer. The committee also discussed data demonstrating the efficacy of  Cervarix against additional cancer-causing virus types.”

The Committee’s favorable recommendation, although not binding, will be considered by the FDA in its final review of the Biologics License Application (BLA) for the candidate vaccine.

In March 2009, GSK submitted final data from its Phase III pivotal study (HPV-008), the single largest efficacy trial of a cervical cancer vaccine to date. The file included data from clinical trials in more than 30 countries involving nearly 30,000 participants receiving Cervarix, which reflect an ethnically and racially diverse population and a broad range of women. It also included a thorough safety assessment relevant to 10-25 year old girls and young women.

Cervarix® has been approved in nearly 100 countries around the world, including the 27 member states of the European Union (EU), Australia, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico and Taiwan. Licensing applications have been submitted in more than 20 additional countries, including Japan and the United States. GSK also received World Health Organization (WHO) prequalification in July 2009.

The likely approval will provide girls and women with an alternative to Merck’s cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil which has been on the market for almost two years. Gardasil has recently come under fire by religious and anti-vaccine groups and sales have been lackluster lately. It will be interesting what effect if any Cervarix will have on the US anti-HPV/cervical cancer market. That said, I doubt whether Merck executives will be sleeping as well as they have been prior to today’s advisory panel recommendation!

For a great comparison of the two vaccines check out an article in today's New York Time business section.

Until next time...

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

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

Yesterday, Sanofi-aventis (S-A) agreed to acquire a controlling stake in Indian vaccine maker, Shantha Biotechnics, for an undisclosed amount. And, recently, Abbott announced a definitive agreement to acquire the nutrition businesses of Wockhardt Limited, Carol Info Services Limited, and certain Wockhardt subsidiaries and group companies for consideration totaling approximately US$130 million in cash.

While these two recent acquisitions don’t appear to be particularly noteworthy, they speak volumes about growing Indian influence in biologics and, perhaps more importantly, in biosimilars. India, long known for its expertise in generic drug development and its ability to work with US-based companies, has expanded beyond generic pharmaceuticals into generic biologics aka biosimilars. Biosimilars have been on the Indian market for over a decade and by all accounts several Indian companies, most notably BioCon, might be able to steal biosimilar market share in Asia from the likes of Sandoz, Merck and Teva—companies expected to be major players in the emerging biosimilar market.

Both Shantha and Wockhardt possess substantial experience in biosimilar development and commercialization. To that end, Sanofi-aventis has publicly announced its desire to get into biotechnology and Abbot must expand its biotechnology pipeline beyond Humira to remain competitive. These acquisitions likely represent Sanofi’s and Abbott’s attempt to gain a foothold in the emerging Asian markets. Also, it gives both companies access to lower cost biologics R&D and manufacturing capabilities.

It will be interesting to see how things unfold over the next year or so!

Until next time...

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

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

The rancorous debate over a regulatory approval pathway for follow-on biologics (aka biosimilars) continues to rage on in the US Congress. Despite recommendations from the Federal Trade Commission that a data exclusivity period for follow-on biologics isn't necessary and a seven year compromise offered by President Obama,the pharmaceutical and biotechnology lobbies continue to press Congress for a 12 to 14 year period of data exclusivity in any legislation for follow-on biologics. 

In a well-balanced article in today’s New York Times, Andrew Pollack diligently put forth the arguments against follow-on biologics that innovator companies have been espousing for the past decade. These include: complexity of the manufacturing processes for biotechnology drugs, potential tolerability and safety issues and perhaps, most importantly, an anticipated loss of profits that innovator companies claim “would stifle American innovation” in the life sciences. Until recently, these arguments were successfully used to hinder any substantive debates on follow-on biologics legislation. However, it  has become increasingly apparent that the American healthcare system can no longer sustain the high costs and lack of access to potentially life-saving branded biotechnology drugs. For those of you who may not know, a regulatory approval pathway for biosimilars already exists in Europe and it has been used to approve eight products since its inception in 2004.  Biosimilars are also available in Australia and have been sold for many years in less-regulated markets including India, China and elsewhere. Japan recently approved legislation for approval of biosimilars and Canada is close to finalizing its regulatory guidelines for these products.

American innovator companies recognizing the inevitability of follow-on biologics, no longer oppose legislation for approval of these molecules. Instead, these companies and their supporters have tenaciously latched on to the data exclusivity argument, presumably in a last ditch effort to preserve their profits from multibillion dollar biotechnology drug franchises that may be lost when follow-on biologics legislation is enacted.  And, for the most part, their uncompromising insistence on an excessively long data exclusivity period appears to be taking hold with members of Congress. At last count, there were more Congressional sponsors of legislation favoring a 12 to 14 year data exclusivity period than there was for those who support a 5 year data exclusively period. The five year data exclusivity period was proposed by follow-on biologics proponents because it is identical to the period required for generic versions of small molecule drugs enacted in the Hatch Waxman Act.

I have been following the follow-on biologic debate for the past eight years and, to date, I know of no scientific claims or relevant safety concerns which argue that 12 to 14 years of data exclusivity is warranted for follow-on products.  For example, no untoward safety or tolerability problems have been reported for any of the eight biosimilar products that were approved and sold in Europe for the past three years. Further, European healthcare agencies and physicians haven’t readily embraced biosimilars despite an almost 25%-30% reduction in price. The one exception is Germany (the largest generic market in Europe), where biosimilar versions of erythropoietin (Eprex) have captured 30% of the anemia market. This, in turn, has  forced some innovator companies to lower prices on their branded products.

Based on the European experience, it is likely that follow-on biologics won’t catch on quickly in the US and it may take years for them to erode the market share garnered by innovator brands.  Also, contrary to earlier assertions, it is becoming increasingly apparent that only large, well capitalized companies with sophisticated regulatory, marketing and distribution capabilities will be able to compete in the US follow-on biologics market. To that end, companies like Sandoz (Novartis) and Merck—one of the companies that originally opposed follow-on biologics legislation—will likely dominant the US follow-on biologics market.

Ironically, the biggest losers in the follow-on biologics debate will likely be the innovator companies—but not for the reasons they once cited to prevent regulatory approval of these molecules. By spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying against follow-on biologics legislation—rather than investing to develop their own lower cost, generic versions of blockbuster biotechnology products—innovator companies have unwittingly provided foreign follow-on biologics manufacturers with a competitive advantage when follow-on biologics are finally approved for sale in the US. Companies like Sandoz, Teva and several Indian biosimilar companies— with products already on the market in Europe, India and China—have been developing biosimilar molecules for the past fiver years or more. Their scientific and regulatory experiences with these products suggests that they will be poised to dominate the US market after legislation permitting approval and sale of follow-on biologics is finally completed. Surprisingly, Merck is the only major pharmaceutical company to publicly announce its intention to compete in the follow-on biologics market. The Merck announcement was made last fall—almost three years after Sandoz won European approval for Omnitrope, its first biosimilar product!

Until next time...

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

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

As expected, Merck announced today that it would eliminate an additional 16,000 job after the merger with Schering Plough is completed. The combined company is trying to get its headcount down to around 90,000 employees. The new job cuts represent a 15% reduction in the workforce of the combined company.

While the merger may have made business sense, it doesn’t bode well for future employment for life scientists in New Jersey.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (are there any left?)

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

Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) is trying to regain sole marketing rights to Remicade, its lucrative anti-TNF treatment for arthritis and psoriasis, because Schering Plough (SGP)—which has most of the marketing rights to the drug outside of the US—is being acquired by Merck. JNJ is seeking arbitration to determine whether or not Centocor, its subsidiary that manufactures Remicade and Simponi, can terminate a marketing agreement for the two drugs—based on terms stipulated in the original contract —if there is a “change of control” at SGP.

As you may recall, Merck was acutely aware of the terms of marketing agreement before it decided to purchase SGP and cleverly engineered the acquisition as a reverse merger— to prevent triggering provisions that could return Schering’s marketing rights for Remicade and Simponi to JNJ if their were leadership changes or a change of control at SGP. JNJ’s announcement contesting wasn’t unexpected after the Merck-Schering Plough deal was announced early last winter—sales of Remicade outside of the US topped $2.0 billion in last year. Simponi, Remicade’s highly touted successor (which recently received FDA approval), is also expected to reach blockbuster status after it reaches the market. 

The Merck-Schering deal left JNJ with few alternative or choices. The company could have counter offered to purchase SGP in its entirety or simply, as it did, invoke terms of the original agreement that would terminate SGP’s marketing rights if there was a “change of control” at the company. JNJ rightfully believes that a change of control will occur when Merck acquires SGP. According to a JNJ spokesperson “As its public statements make clear Merck is acquiring Schering Plough. The acquisition constitutes a change of control and trigger’s Centocor’s right to terminate.” It will be interesting to see how an arbitrator rules in the case.

While the loss of Remicade and Simponi isn’t likely to jeopardize the Merck-Schering Plough deal (according to Merck executives), it may affect the financial terms and overall benefit or upside of the acquisition. The expected completion of the deal is scheduled for the fourth quarter of this year.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

The FDA has approved Johnson and Johnson’s Simponi (golimumab), a new treatment for adults with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis , psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. Unlike Enbrel, Remicade and Humira, other anti-TNF-alpha monoclonal antibody products—which require multiple monthly intravenous infusions—Simponi is injected under the skin and requires only a single monthly injection. 

Simponi is intended for use in combination with the immune-suppressing drug methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. It also may be used with or without methotrexate for psoriatic arthritis and alone in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, a chronic inflammatory arthritis of the spine.

In clinical trials, patients who received Simponi for one of the three conditions showed improvements in the signs and symptoms common to their form of arthritis.

Like other anti-TNF-alpha monoclonal antibody products, Simponi labeling includes a boxed warning alerting patients and health care professionals to the risk of tuberculosis and serious fungal infections with use of the drug. The most common side effects of Simponi include upper respiratory tract infection, sore throat, and nasal congestion.

I have no doubt that Simponi will provide much-needed relief to patients suffering from immune arthritis. However, I think that the marketing folks at J& J could have come up with a better name—it reminds me of Spumoni (the Italian ice cream) and The Simpsons television program. But, then again, the name is distinctive and easy to remember!

Until next time...

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

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

Since 2007, approximately 80,000 pharmaceutical jobs have been eliminated. The recent consolidation in the industry, e.g., Merck-Schering, Pfizer-Wyeth and Roche-Genentech suggests that many more life sciences jobs will be lost over the next year or so. Typically, to avoid law suits and possible discrimination claims, most companies will layoff a mixture of experienced and entry level employees that cover the racial, religious and age spectra. For those of you who may not know, Americans who are 40 and older constitute a “protected class of employees.” In other words, companies that layoff employees cannot disproportionately give pink slips to employees 40 years of age or older. This law was enacted because older employees typically have higher salaries and have accrued more benefits and vacation time than their more junior counterparts and eliminating them can drastically cut costs. While most companies are careful to layoff a mixture of junior and senior employees during large layoffs, a quick perusal of the demographics of employees who lose their jobs reveals that many of them are older, more experienced workers. Sacrificing a few entry level employees (to prevent any red flags) is worth it to the accountants who charged with cutting costs and orchestrating large corporate layoffs.

Unlike consumer goods, pharmaceutical and biotechnology drug development is arcane, complex and may take up to 15 years to complete. There are many “go” or “no go” decisions that must be made during the drug development process. Typically, these decisions are rendered by experienced employees who have been “down the road” many times before and are able to recognize the oft-time nuanced attributes of successful drug candidates. Without the benefit of these employee and their experiences, drug companies may struggle to make the “right decisions” for new products being developed. Also, the loss of experienced employees can disrupt the flow of essential “corporate knowledge” to entry level and more junior employees. This is important because— while most entry level and junior employees are academically and technically qualified—it usually takes them years (under the tutelage of mentors and senior employees) to understand a company’s best practices. Put simply, the unrelenting loss of experienced pharmaceutical workers can alter the standing or dominance of pharmaceutical companies in certain therapeutic areas. While massive layoffs of experienced pharmaceutical employees bolster drug stock prices in the short term, the long term effects of these layoffs on the overall health of the pharmaceutical industry remains uncertain.

Jeff Kindler, Pfizer’s CEO, mentioned yesterday during a CNBC interview, that eight Wyeth senior executives will keep their jobs after the Pfizer-Wyeth deal closes later this year. Not surprisingly, he failed to mention how many “rank and file” employees of the combined company would keep their jobs after the merger. Don’t be shocked when Pfizer-Wyeth announces massive layoffs after the deal closes—Pfizer’s stock price has fallen 21% since it announced the Wyeth acquisition late last fall.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

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

Today's New York Times reported that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued warning letters and ordered 14 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to stop running what it calls misleading ads on internet search pages displayed by search engines like Google. The agency faulted the companies for failing to identify product names (brand) and not listing potential side effects (only benefits) for the drugs. In other words, the ads lacked “fair balance” something that FDA stresses and that all drug makers are very familiar with. 

Drug makers and other interest groups pay search engines like Google to place ads on search result pages after someone types in a related search word. The sidebar ads typically contain a eye-catching headline about a relevant medical condition or product and links to websites promoting certain products. The companies receiving warning letters included: Bayer, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cephalon, Eli Lilly, Forrest Laboratories, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi-Aventis. Not surprisingly, most of the world’s largest and most profitable were guilty of running misleading Internet search engine ads.

Historically, drug companies and FDA have engaged in a cat and mouse approach when it comes to advertising and marketing drug and medical devices and diagnostics. This is because FDA’s existing regulations that guide marketing and advertising practices are relatively lax and it provides drug makers with the opportunity to see how far they can push the agency before “they get caught.” While this practice may have been acceptable for print and television advertising, it may no longer be appropriate for Internet advertising— which potentially has a much broader and larger reach than traditional media because there are not national borders on the Web. Unfortunately, FDA has been slow (reluctant?) to react to digital media and is even more perplexed about social media and the drug industry. Rather than continue to play cat and mouse, I think it would be in the best interest of consumers if FDA and drug makers would sit down and craft new guidance on regulating Internet advertising and marketing practices. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the old rules are no longer sufficient as digital and social media continue to evolve.

Until next time....

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

As you all know by now, Merck announced on Monday that it will purchase Schering Plough for $41.1billion in a deal constructed as a reverse merger. The reverse merger strategy was concocted to prevent the new company from losing the international sale rights to Remicade, Johnson and Johnson’s lucrative, blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis drug. According to the original deal inked by Johnson and Johnson and Schering Plough, Schering would have to surrender its rights to Remicade— which generated $2.1 billion in sales outside of the US last year —and golimumab (which is pending approval in Europe) if current ownership of Schering changes. Golimumab (CNTO 148) is Johnson and Johnson’s Centocor division next-generation human anti-TNF-alpha monoclonal antibody be developed as monthly subcutaneous treatment for adults with active forms of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.  Since the merger was announced on Monday, Johnson and Johnson hasn’t issued any public statements about the deal—prompting some analysts to speculate that Johnson and Johnson may well make a counteroffer to acquire Schering Plough. Others believe that Johnson and Johnson will challenge the new company’s international rights to Remicade and golimumab despite the great lengths that Merck and Schering Plough management went to structure the acquisition as a reverse merger. Stay tuned for updates.

In other merger news, US-based Gilead announced that it will acquire CV Therapeutics for about $1.4 billion. The deal tops the hostile takeover offer from Astellas Pharma of Japan. Gilead, an HIV drug manufacturer is purchasing CV Therapeutics—which sells the cardiovascular drugs Ranexa (chronic angina) and Lexican (reduces stress during cardiovascular surgical procedures)—to expand its therapeutic repertoire beyond virology. The stock prices of shares of Gilead and CV Therapeutics jumped after the announcement signaling Wall Street’s approval of the deal.   Nevertheless, it may be premature for Gilead and CV Therapeutics to begin celebrating—Astellas may very well tender a counteroffer!

Until next time...

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

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

Some of you may have been wondering why the$41.1 billion Merck-Schering Plough merger announced yesterday was designed as a reverse merger. For those of you who are not familiar with the reverse merger strategy, this is how it works. Generally speaking, a failing or failed publicly traded company that is listed on one stock exchange or another merges with a privately held company. The privately held company takes over the public stock listing and manages the day-to-day operations of the new business. Private companies that engage in reverse mergers are usually looking for cash infusions for product development or a stock listing (without going through an initial public offering) which offers it shareholders immediate cash value.  Investors who previously held stock in the public company are either compensated for their shares in cash or given shares (at a negotiated price) in the new entity. Any cash (or assets) left in the public company can be used to develop the formerly private company’s product(s) and if successful, shareholders in the old public company can eventually benefit. 

If reverse mergers are designed to bolster the prospects of private companies in need of cash why was the Merck-Schering Plough deal structured as a reverse merger? As I mentioned in a post yesterday, Schering-Plough markets Remicade outside of the US under an agreement with Johnson and Johnson which sells the drug in America. A termination clause in the original marketing agreement stipulates that the ex-US rights to Remicade (and another drug being developed) would revert to Johnson and Johnson if control or ownership of Schering Plough changes. Remicade, a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, developed by Johnson and Johnson’s subsidiary Centocor, represented $2.1 billion in sales for Schering in 2008. Further, about 70% of Schering Plough’s revenue comes from outside the US. That said, the success or failure of the deal really hinges on whether or not Johnson and Johnson will challenge the change-in-control clause for Remicade. To obviate that possibility, Merck devised an unusual reverse merger strategy in which ownership of Schering Plough will not change hands—at least on paper anyway. Instead, even though Merck is putting up the money to purchase Schering, and Richard Clark, Merck’s Chairman and CEO, will run the newly combined company, Merck would technically become a subsidiary of Schering Plough and consequently there would be no change in Schering Plough management! Recall that Fred Hassan, Schering Plough’s CEO will remain with the newly formed entity during the transition. After the deal closes, Fred would step down as CEO, Merck’s current CEO—Richard Clark—would assume leadership and quietly change the name of the company from Schering Plough to Merck.

Of course, Johnson and Johnson could challenge the deal anyway, and if Merck was to lose in arbitration, it could possibly jeopardize the entire financial upside of the deal. Merck contends that even if it loses the rights to Remicade, the deal still makes sense.  Not so, said one Wall St analyst, “I think that is a lot of malarkey. You don’t take out 20 percent of a company’s revenue and their core international growth driver and say it is not worth anything,” he said. Other analysts think that the uncertainty over Remicade puts Schering Plough shareholders at a disadvantage and one response may be for Johnson and Johnson to make a higher bid for the company.  Still others believe that, while sale of Schering Plough makes sense, the $41.4 billion price offered by Merck is too low. Johnson and Johnson didn’t comment on the deal.

Schering Plough employees who I talked with yesterday after the deal was announced are not pleased with it either. They feel that Johnson and Johnson would be a more suitable partner and that Fred Hassan, who was under enormous shareholder pressure, had no choice but to sell the company as quickly as possible. It is not surprising that many Schering Plough employees would rather have the company sold to Johnson and Johnson rather than Merck. Unlike most pharmaceutical companies, Johnson and Johnson tends to leave the companies it purchases alone and runs them as wholly-owned after it purchases them.  Another reason why a merger with Johnson and Johnson makes more sense than one with Merck is that Johnson and Johnson has a very profitable consumer products division. This would be a better fit for Schering which has several highly visible and profitable consumer products like Coppertone and Dr. Scholl’s. In contrast, Merck sold its consumer products division years ago and will almost certainly divest itself of Schering’s consumer products division after the deal closes.

Now that Schering Plough is no longer in play, all eyes are on Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). BMS is about the same size as Schering Plough, has plenty of cash on hand and is thought to have a robust biotechnology pipeline. And, like Schering Plough,  it has been rumored to be a takeover target for the past 20 years!

Until next time...

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

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

Merck announced today that it was buying Schering Plough, the Kenilworth-New Jersey based drug maker, for $41.1 billion. The deal comes only six weeks after Pfizer said that it would purchase NJ-based Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. Superficially, the deal may make sense for the two struggling drug makers—they co-market the cholesterol-lowering drug Vytorin and also have collaborations in the respiratory diseases area. Also, Schering Plough has the European rights to the anti-arthritis drug Remicade and its 2007 purchase of the Dutch biopharmaceutical company Organon Biosciences NV provides access to several potential biotechnology drugs. Nevertheless, the impending merger will ultimately result in job losses and higher unemployment in the state of New Jersey.

Merck currently employs 55,200 workers and Schering-Plough—which grew significantly with its purchase of Organon—also has about 55,000 employees. While no immediate job cuts are planned, a company spokesperson acknowledged that the size of the combined workforce will be reduced by approximately 15%-20% over the next year or so. This means that as many as 20,000 pharmaceutical employees may lose their jobs—a time when unemployment in NJ is approaching 10 percent! My sources tell me that Merck employees are already on edge because of surprise layoffs that occurred in early September, 2008. I suspect that employee anxiety will be extremely high at both companies for the foreseeable future—never a good thing from a productivity point of view.

According to press releases, Schering-Plough's shareholders will get $10.50 in cash and 0.5767 Merck shares for each Schering-Plough share they own. That's a 34 percent premium to Schering-Plough's closing stock price on Friday. Merck's top executive, Chairman and CEO Richard Clark, will lead the combined company, which will attempt to remain a dominant player in treatment areas including cholesterol, respiratory, infectious disease and women's drugs, as well as vaccines. Schering-Plough's CEO, Fred Hassan, will participate in planning integration of the two companies until the close of the deal, which is expected in the fourth quarter. The transaction is to be structured as a reverse merger. Schering-Plough will be the surviving corporation but will take the name Merck. The new company will remain at Merck's headquarters in Whitehouse Station, N.J. and a company spokesperson indicated that a "substantial majority" of employees of Schering-Plough will remain with the newly-formed company. The combined revenue of both companies in 2008 was $47 billion.

Mr. Hassan, a talented, “turn-around” pharmaceutical executive, took over Schering-Plough six years ago as chairman and CEO—a time when the company was struggling with a $500 million fine (the largest ever at the time) imposed by the US Food and Drug Administration because of chronic manufacturing problems. While Schering-Plough is now in much better financial shape than when Mr. Hassan first arrived at the company, its stock price is currently almost identical to the price when he took over (it lost 50% of its value in the past 18 months). Let’s see whether or not Richard Clark, Merck’s current Chairman and CEO, has the mettle to run the combined company. While Schering-Plough has long been rumored to be a takeover target, I don’t think that the Merck-Schering Plough deal is a particularly good or strategic one. Both companies have been struggling of late because of near empty drug pipelines and the ongoing brouhaha over Zetia, Vytorin and Merck’s Vioxx. Further, both companies face price reductions and slumping sales in the next year or so because several blockbuster drugs will lose patent protection and face stiff competition from generic drug manufacturers.

Like the Pfizer-Wyeth deal, the Merck-Schering Plough merger may little more than a red herring. I still fail to see how merging two oversized, struggling pharmaceutical companies can possibly result in the creation of a single successful one. The only upside of the deal is that it allows the newly-formed company to restructure operations, eliminate tens of thousands of jobs and cut costs to bolster its stock share price. That said, I don’t think that an artificially-inflated stock share price necessarily translates into the innovation that historically has been required to create new drugs to treat unmet medical needs!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (avoid NJ at all costs)!!!!!!!

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

A team of researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (my alma mater) genetically engineered a strain of Streptomyces platensis to overproduce the antibiotics platensimycin and platencin. They accomplished this by deleting a regulatory gene (ptmR1, whichencodes a putative GntR-like transcriptional regulator) in the antibiotic synthetic pathway that controls production. The newly engineered strain has been reported to overproduce platensimycin and platencin with yieldsof 323 ± 29 mg/L and 255 ± 30 mg/L, respectively. This represents a 100-fold increase in the yields observed with corresponding S. platensis wild type strains.

Platensimycin is the first of a new class of natural product antibiotics (with a novel mode of action) to be discovered in the past 40 years.  It exhibits strong, broad-spectrum Gram-positive antibacterial activity by selectively inhibiting cellular lipid biosynthesis. Treatment with platensimycin eradicates Staphylococcus aureus infection in mice. Because of its unique mode of action, platensimycin shows no cross-resistance to other key antibiotic-resistant strains tested, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus, vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci.

Platencin, also a natural product, is chemically and biologically related but different from platensimycin. Like platensimycin, it exhibits a broad-spectrum Gram-positive antibacterial activity through inhibition of fatty acid biosynthesis. And, it doesn’t exhibit cross-resistance to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococci. Moreover, platencin shows potent in vivo efficacy without any observed toxicity.

Both antibiotics show promise for commercialization. While we need new antibiotics, both platensimycin and platencin target only Gram positive bacteria. Infections caused by multiple drug resistant Gram negative bacteria are threatening to overtake those caused by Gram positive in the very near future. At present, to the best of my knowledge, there are no new antibiotics in the pipeline directed against multiple drug resistant Gram negative strains.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Antibiotic Hunting!!!!!!!!

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

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!)

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

At its annual business briefing, Merck’s CEO, Richard Clark, announced that the company is creating a new division called BioVentures that will develop and sell follow on biologics. Clark said that the reason for this surprising decision was based on “the arrival of the Obama administration and renewed enthusiasm on Capitol Hill for legislation that could create an easier path for generic biotech medicines.”

Merck’s new BioVentures division will be built around the humanized yeast manufacturing platform developed by Glycofi, a privately-held, company that Merck acquired two years ago. While most of big pharma and big biotech publicly lobbied against new legislation that would make follow-on biologics legal in the US, Merck was surprisingly low key on the subject (now, we know why).

I first learned about Glycofi’s technology platform shortly after the company was formed in the early 2000 and immediately recognized its implication for follow-on biologics manufacturers. I immediately contacted Glycofi’s CEO at the time to see whether or not they would hire me as a “follow-on biologics consultant.” Sadly, because cash was tight (as it always is at start ups) I didn’t get the gig but I did get to know Tillman Gerngross, one of the Glycofi’s founders and its Chief Scientific Officer. Tillman and I spent some down time together at many of the follow-on biologics conferences that I organized where he was an invited speaker.

I was glad (mostly for Tillman) when I learned that Merck was going to by Glycofi for $400 million in cash. That said, the acquisition didn’t make sense to me at the time because Merck didn’t have a biologics division (although it did have a successful vaccine division).  After today’s announcement, Merck’s decision to purchase Glycofi makes perfect scientific and financial sense to me. I wish I could have gotten a piece of Glycofi before Merck bought the company. Nevertheless, I take solace in the fact that I, like Merck’s executives, can recognize a winning technology when I see one!

Maybe Merck will turn itself around after all!

Until next time…

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

 Merck announced today that as part of its ongoing restructuring plan to cut costs it will eliminate approximately 7,200 positions — 6,800 active employees and 400 vacancies — across all areas of the Company worldwide by the end of 2011.  This amounts to a 12 percent reduction in the company’s workforce. About 40 percent of the total reductions will occur in the United States.  To streamline management layers across the Company, Merck will reduce its total number of senior and mid-level executives by approximately 25 percent.  These positions are in addition to the 10,400 positions.  As of Sept. 30, Merck has approximately 56,700 employees. In addition to the layoffs, Merck will close three research facilities; one in Tsukuba, Japan; another in Pomezia, Italy and one in Seattle Washington by the end of 2009.

Merck expects the 2008 cutbacks to save the company $3.8 billion to $4.2 billion over the next five years. BioJobBlog reported several weeks ago that Merck had been quietly laying off employees since September. I suspect that today’s announcement comes as no surprise to employees who still work at the Company.

New Jersey once dubbed “America’s medicine chest” is starting to look less full!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said about 25% of teenage girls received at least one dose of Merck & Co.'s Gardasil vaccine in 2007, providing the first national estimate of usage of the company’s controversial anti- HPV (cervical cancer) vaccine.

A 25% usage rate for a a new vaccine during its first year on the market is outstanding. That said, Merck’s Gardasil is the only approved anti-HPV vaccine in the US. Approval of GlaxoSmithKline’s competing product, Cervarix, by FDA has been delayed for so-called “regulatory issues.” Also, Merck has been heavily promoting Gardasil use via well-crafted DTC ads and a variety of clever promotional campaigns aimed at adolescent girls and their mothers.

Despite all the negative press and Merck’s questionable marketing practices, Gardasil appears to be doing very well—something that Merck desperately needs.

Until next time…

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time….

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

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

 On the surface, you wouldn’t think that the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV, the causative agent of venereal warts and cervical cancer) and US Homeland Security have much in common. However, they have more in common than you think as reported in yesterday's Pharmalot blog.

According to a report by the TheStreet.com , Homeland Security’s US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the first government agency to mandate that all female immigrants’ ages 11 to 26 years old be vaccinated against HPV. Because Gardasil is the only cervical cancer (HPV) vaccine that is approved for use in the US it will the vaccine used for the mandatory immunizations. Surprisingly, there is no HPV vaccination requirement for US visa holders or American citizens.

Since the policy was begun, an estimated 233,000 females aged 11 to 26 who entered the US as prospective citizens paid a combined $52 million or so for the vaccinations according to the Street.com article. Curiously, the USCIS is requiring only a single injection for females who receive the vaccine—the Gardasil label indicates that three injections are required for full anti-HPV effectiveness.

As you may recall, more than 20 states rejected plans backed by Merck to make Gardasil vaccination mandatory. Merck abandoned its campaign after parents and medical experts expressed concern about safety and effectiveness. While Gardasil vaccination is optional for American citizens, there is apparently no opt-out provision for females who simply want to immigrate to the US. The confusion may like lie in a document issued by the US State Department called form DS-3025, or “vaccination documentation worksheet which says vaccination against “Human Papillomavirus is required for US immigrant visa applicants.” Here is the form.

John Abramson, the former chairman of the CDC’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices when the HPV requirement began in April 2007, and an opponent of mandatory vaccination said “This is not a disease that is communicable like SARS or pandemic flu or even measles.” “I am stunned. It was not the intention of the policy to mandate vaccination of immigrants,”

Ironically, Merck which has been pushing as hard as it can to promote Gardasil use isn’t aware of the Homeland Security policy, according to a Merck spokeswoman. It just goes to show how effective unregulated pharmaceutical lobbying can be!!!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

The Pharmalot Blog reported today that Schering Plough will eliminate 1,000sales jobs or 20% of its sales force by October. This latest round of layoffs is part of a reorganization plan that was announced last year to cut 10% of it workforce by 2012 (although must of the downsizing will occur by 2010). The reorganization was announced shortly after Schering purchased Organon Biosciences and the “wheels came off” of its Zetia/Vytorin anti-cholesterol medication franchise.

In other news, BioJobBlog heard through the grapevine that Merck has been quietly laying off workers (since Labor Day) in an attempt to reduce its workforce by 20% over the next few years. Many very talented people who have been with Merck for years are looking for new jobs.

Finally, Montvale, NJ-based Memory Pharmaceuticals announced that it was laying off 55 workers or roughly 50% of its workforce. The company, which went public in a much heralded IPO in 2004, focuses on developing treatments for cognitive disorders. Although the company has never been profitable, the person who ran the company for the past three years (first as president, then CEO and finally CFO) earned $876,807 last year. Not surprisingly, he will be leaving the company as part of the downsizing initiative.

The ongoing pharma slowdown coupled with this week’s Wall Street meltdown (many people who work on Wall Street live in New Jersey) should make New Jersey a very challenging and interesting place to live in the coming months.

Hat tip to Ed at Pharmalot.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (I would avoid NJ)!!!!!!

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

Novartis announced today that it will open a new research facility and hire an additional 150 people by the end of 2009 for a Research Center of Excellence in Virology in Cambridge, MA. That will increase the number of people employed by the company in Cambridge to more than 1,800 workers. Researchers at the new center will study vaccines for HIV/AIDS influenza, cytomegalovirus (CMV) and respiratory syncitial virus (RSV). 

The vaccine business once avoided like the plague by most pharma companies, has been growing by leaps and bound over the past five years and is sizzling hot these days. According to analysts, vaccines generated about $16 billion dollars last year. For example, Merck’s anti-human papilloma virus vaccine Gardasil generated $1.5 billion in sales in 2007.

Novartis clearly sees an upside in the vaccine business and is willing to make a wise investment for the future.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

Despite an increase in profits, BMS announced today that it will continue with its Productivity Transformation Initiative (PTI) that was instituted last fall. According to the PTI, BMS must save $1.0 billion over the next 2 years. Of course, the only way to accomplish this is by laying off employees whose jobs are not directly related to the process of transforming BMS into a “ next generation biopharma company” (Would somebody please write me and explain what that means)???? I suspect that BMS employees will be receiving “pink slips” after Labor Day.

This has been a devastating week for the NJ-based pharmaceutical industry. First, Teva announced last week that it will buy Montvale NJ-based Barr Pharmaceuticals and then earlier this week Roche issued a press release indicating that it will move its corporate headquarters from Nutley NJ to South San Francisco (Genentech’s headquarters) by 2010. The impending layoffs at BMS coupled with job freezes and downsizing at other NJ pharma companies like Schering Plough and Merck may signal the beginning of the end of New Jersey’s status as the “nation’s medicine chest.”

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (forget New Jersey)!

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

A post at the Pharmalot blog said that the US FDA and the Centers for Disease Control issued a statement today indicating, that after reviewing side effect reports, Merck’s anti-HPV (cervical cancer) vaccine Gardasil is safe and effective, and its benefits continue to outweigh its risks.

According to the statement, the joint agency review determined that 94 percent of  all side effects reported after Gardasil vaccination were not serious. The most commonly reported adverse events fainting, pain at the injection site, headache, nausea and fever. Fainting is common after injections and vaccinations, especially in adolescents, the agencies noted.

Although there have been 20 reported deaths following vaccination, there was no common pattern or tend that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine itself. The statement went on to say that in cases where autopsy, death certificate and medical records were available, the cause of death was explained by factors other than the vaccine.

The statement was likely issued in response to highly publicized and widely circulated adverse events reports issued by the ultraconservative Judicial Watch which is morally opposed to HPV vaccination. It is extremely unfortunate that a small but vocal group of conservative Christians are willing to risk the health of their daughters because they are morally opposed to premarital sex and birth control. 

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

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

The old adage “When it rains, it pours” is particular apt for the bad news that has plagued the once venerable Merck & Co for the past five years. First, there was the Vioxx scandal, followed in short order by the Vytorin and Singulair messes and now it appears that the company’s new anti-cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil, may have —pardon the expression — a few “warts” on it. 

Last night on my local nightly news, there was a brief report about emerging safety issues with Gardasil. According to the report, adverse events ranging from “massive wart outbreaks to seizures and paralysis” have been reported for the anti-HPV vaccine. Since its approval in 2006, over 8,000 adverse event reports (the total number of people vaccinated was not disclosed) and 18 alleged deaths have been reported for Gardasil (although none of the deaths has been directly linked to Gardasil vaccination). This news comes on the heels of a recent Wall Street analyst’s report indicating that sales of Gardasil are much lower than expected. It appears that the vaccine, once considered by Merck insiders as the new blockbuster that could save the flagging drug maker, may, after all, be relegated to specialty drug status.

As many of you may know, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is seeking US approval for its anti-cervical cancer vaccine called Cervarix. Although Merck beat GSK to market, Cervarix has undergone more clinical testing and allegedly may have a better safety and tolerability profile than Gardasil (only the regulatory agencies know for sure). Nevertheless, it is not clear whether GSK will benefit or be injured by the negative publicity that Gardasil is receiving. As I mentioned in a previous post, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently delayed Cervarix’s approval pending submission of additional data that the agency requested from GSK.

Before anybody puts a nail in Gardasil’s coffin, it is important to point out who started the recent firestorm about the vaccine. It was none other than the conservative-funded public interest group Judicial Watch. It is no secret that this group advocates abstinence over condom usage and other methods to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. Further,  I suspect that a majority of Judicial Watch’s members don’t believe sex education or pre-marital sex for that matter. Finally, I have no doubt that Judicial Watch received some support (financial, spiritual or otherwise) from the anti-vaccination lobby that is unfortunately gaining strength in the US and elsewhere.

From a scientific standpoint, it is difficult to get a real measure of the safety of a vaccine until it has been widely used by large numbers of people. Although pivotal Phase III trials are required for all vaccine approvals, the number of people studied in these trials (sometimes in the tens of thousands) is not sufficient to predict all possible safety problems that may emerge when the vaccine gains widespread use. For this reason, regulatory agencies typically require vaccine manufacturers to conduct mandatory post marketing Phase IV clinical trials that are designed to address the seriousness of any possible safety concerns that may have emerged after a vaccine has been on the market for several years. Because all vaccine makers know this, it is still not clear to me why Merck, a company which has been in the vaccine business for a very long time, embarked on its failed lobbying campaign to get Gardasil on the mandatory US vaccination schedule shortly after it was approved. 

As I have said in the past, ALL pharmaceutical and biotechnology drugs have side effects and their occurrence and severity varies from person to person. Generally speaking, most drugs are approved by regulatory agencies because their potential benefits outweigh real or presumed safety risks. That said, the question facing all parents who have daughters is: Does protection against cervical cancer outweigh any adverse events or potential safety risks associated with Gardasil or Cervarix vaccination? It is a tough question but one that my wife and I and others will have to answer for our daughters!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (avoid Whitehouse Station, NJ)!!!!!!!!!

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

Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) directed against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors on cancer cells, have been found to slow the growth of a variety of cancers including colorectal, breast and lung.  While a number of blockbuster biotechnology products( based on these MAbs (Avastin by Genentech/Roche and Eribitux by Bristol-Myers Squibb/ImClone/Merck KGA) have been approved to treat a variety of different cancers their effectiveness as cancer treatments has been the subject of intense debate since their approvals.

Although numerous human clinical trials have shown that VEGF inhibitors slow the growth and development of tumors, they, as a class, don’t seem to significantly increase the survival time for most cancer patients. Further, Avastin and Erbitux are generally not used as stand alone treatments but are used in combination with more tradition anti-cancer chemotherapies. The high costs of these drugs, (Avastin’s worldwide sales hit $ 3.5 billion last year) and their variable effectiveness have caused many to question the usefulness of this class of drugs to treat cancer patients.

The well-publicized use of these drugs as cancer treatments coupled with anecdotal evidence about their effectiveness has put practicing oncologists between a rock and a hard place when it comes to treating patietns with cancer. In an article in Sunday’s New York Times one prominent oncologist said that depsite the controversy,  “I still use Avastin routinely. It’s not a slam dunk and, in fact, the incremental benefit may be more modest than we want to admit.” Others are more sanguine about VEGF inhibitors as cancer treatments “Even when these drugs ‘work,’ what kind of impact are you talking about?” said Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. But we market them and give them to everybody.”  

Nevertheless, most oncologists find it difficult to withhold Avastin or Erbitux from cancer patients seeking hope. As one oncologist put it “ When I am not sitting in front of a patient, I think about whether drugs like Avastin are worth it to society. But when facing a seriously ill patient, who, based on clinical trial results, might benefit — even if only a little — from Avastin, I think about the patient’s needs.” 

Regardless of their therapeutic value, the main issue with this class of anti-cancer drugs is cost. Avastin treatment costs patients about $4000-$9000 per month— Eribitux treatment is even more costly! While Medicare and most private insurers cover 80% of the cost, patients can be responsible for 20% or more of treatmetn costs.  As posited in the Times article “If Avastin were inexpensive or if it cured cancer or even held it at bay, as the drug Gleevec does for blood cancer, few might care.”

Are anti-VEGF drugs real cancer treatments or expensive red herrings? Clearly, the jury is still out on that one. That said, I think that only cancer patients can truly provide an accurate response to that question!

Until next time…

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

Merck announced last week that it will cut 1,200 sales jobs in the U.S. by the end of July. The company also confirmed a plan to eliminate a small natural products group in Spain and Rahway, NJ. Whereas the salespeople who lost their jobs were given notice by the company, the natural products researchers in Spain (and Rahway) learned of their imminent demise via a power point presentation given by a Merck executive (whose name has not been disclosed).

According to reports, the Merck executive inadvertently included a slide in his presentation that outlined the plan for the layoffs to an audience that included Merck employees. Oops… The decision to close down in-house natural products research will impact approximately 50 researchers in Spain and "a significantly smaller number" in Rahway, N.J., according to Merck spokesman.

Merck eliminated most of its natural products discovery programs about 10 years ago but apparently maintained a small group hoping for a natural products discovery comeback. I, along with others, think that the blockbuster drugs of the future will come from natural product discovery. For those doubters out there, would somebody care to tell me the names of any blockbuster drugs that were discovered by combinatorial and computational chemistry?

I rest my case! 

Thanks to Ed over at Pharmalot for the heads up on this story!!!!!

Until next time…

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

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

As I mentioned in previous posts, things are simply not going Merck’s way. Merck has been battered in the past several months by the Singular flap, precipitous drops in Vytorin and Zetia sales and, most recently, FDA’s rejection of its follow-up Cordaptive anti-cholesterol drug. This has left the drug maker with little choice but to cut an additional 1,200 jobs from its rapidly shrinking US sales force.

The cuts, announced yesterday, are in addition to a companywide reorganization that began in 2005 which resulted in the elimination of approximately 8,100 positions. As of last December, Merck had 59,800 employees worldwide—soon to be 58,600 give or take a few employees!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting???????

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

It seems like nothing is going right for Merck these days. On Monday, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a “not approvable”–aka a rejection letter–for Merck’s new cholesterol drug called Cordaptive or MK-0524A. The highly-touted drug, which Merck executives hoped would replace Merck’s blockbuster cholesterol drug, Zocor (which lost patent protection a couple of years ago), can both lower LDL (bad) and raise HDL (good) cholesterol. Although experts believe that these properties should benefit people with high cholesterol, the results from recent clinical trials suggest that drugs that raise LDL and lower HDL cholesterol may have safety problems.

Cordaptive consists of an extended-release form of niacin (a B vitamin) and another agent that inhibits a niacin side effect called flushing — redness, burning and tingling of the face. Niacin has been used to control cholesterol for decades. Abbott Laboratories already sells an extended-release form of niacin called Niaspan.

Despite positive results from recent clinical trials and pending approval by the European Union, the agency rejected Merck’s NDA. Regulators also rejected Cordaptive as a brand name. It is likely that FDA is scrutinizing and proceeding cautiously with new cholesterol medications because of the recent flap over Zetia and Vytorin (which are co-marketed and sold by Merck and Schering Plough). As you may recall, both companies have been accused of trying to protect sales of the two drugs by delaying results of a study that showed Vytorin worked no better than Zocor, which is much cheaper.  Merck’s stock price dropped about 5% yesterday after the company announced that it received a not approvable letter from FDA.

Although MK-0524A may ultimately reach the US market, I wouldn’t count on it anytime soon. Merck has seriously tarnished its reputation with FDA because of the Vioxx, Vytorin and Singular controversies. The old adage, “You reap what you sow” is particularly apt in this instance. Look for more “asset reallocation” moves in Rahway.

Until next time…

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I mentioned in a post about a month or so ago, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) floated a proposal to ease the rules regarding promotion of off-label use of previously approved drugs. According to the newly proposed rules, FDA would allow drug makers to provide physicians with reprints of journal articles that conspicuously promote off-label uses for previously approved products. At present, drug companies are strictly forbidden to promote off-label use of their products.  A major proviso of the proposed rule changes is that the articles/reprints must be published in peer reviewed medical journals before they can be disseminated to physicians and other healthcare professionals. Apparently, FDA officials believe that peer review can take the place of the rigorous regulations and requirements that are currently in place for US approval of drugs, biologics and medical devices!

For those of you who don’t know, an editorial appeared in last week’sJournal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that took drug maker Merck to task for using alleged ghostwriters and ghost authors on clinical studies that were published about it painkiller Vioxx. As you all know, Merck voluntarily took Vioxx off the market in 2004 after it was revealed that the drug could lead to increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

The incendiary firestorm that has ensued since the appearance of the  Although I believe that the practices of ghostwriting and ghost authoring are not as widespread as the JAMA authors would like you to believe, I think that it is a good thing that FDA may scuttle its proposed new off-label drug promotion rules.

In my opinion (humble or otherwise), drug makers MUST be required to prove that off-label uses of previously approved products  don’t pose any serious safety or health risks before companies are allowed to promote them for new indications. As we have seen time and again in recent years, safety issues and serious health risks can arise for drugs even though they received FDA approval. With this in mind I ask: “Why would FDA allow drug makers to provide less rigorous proof for an off-label indication than that required for approval of the intended use of the original product?”  It makes little sense to me. However, looking more closely at the proposed rule changes,  it would obviate the need for companies to spend additional monies (possibly hundreds of millions) to garner FDA approval for a new product indication.  Hmmm….maybe I am beginning to see a pattern here!!!!!!!

Until next time….

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

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

There is mounting evidence that RNAi, once hailed as a panacea for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, may not be all that it was claimed to be. Yes, there are several new RNAi drug candidates in late stage clinical development but it isn’t clear, at this point, whether any of these products will ever make it to market. Companies like Allergan, Alnylam, Opko Health and Merck, which recently bought the RNAi company Sirna Therapeutics for $1.1 billion, have invested hundreds of millions of dollars and literally “bet the farm” on RNAi therapeutics.

The use of DNA and RNA as therapeutics is not a new or novel idea. Isis Pharmaceuticals, a pioneer and champion of oligonucleotide therapeutics, has only be able to bring a single, oligonucleotide-based product to market in the past 20 years. Ask any Isis executive and they will tell you that turning DNA or RNA into drugs is a challenging process that is fraught with many difficulties. Most notably, there are bioavailability, delivery and target specificity hurdles that most be over come before the utility of these drugs as therapeutic agents can be realized. That said the attractiveness of these molecules as therapeutics (and perhaps their real danger) is the simplicity and elegance of their mechanism(s) of action. Most scientists tend to “fall in love” with elegant and parsimonious solutions to complex processes—why would we not, they are type of discoveries that we all train and live for! And, as many of us know, when people “fall in love”, there is a tendency to overlook or not notice warning signs that things may not be as they seem.

The scientific community fell quickly and deeply in love with RNAi soon after the first papers appeared touting its benefits and possible therapeutic applications. Scientists were so convinced and confident about RNAi that they induced the financial community to invest billions of dollars into the emerging technology. The love and affection for RNAi reached its pinnacle in 2006 when two scientists, who played a crucial role in discovering its mechanism of action, won the Nobel Prize. Since then, the harsh realities of RNAi drug development have begun to be realized by companies that invested in the technology.

I have been around long enough to understand that there are fads in science. In the mid 1990s it was combinatorial chemistry, in the late 1990s it was genomics, proteomics and computational chemistry and in the 2000s it is RNAi. Don’t get me wrong–all of these technologies have helped to advance science and  provide researchers with sophisticated tools that have helped to expedite the drug discovery and development process. That said, none of these technologies, by themselves, yielded the plethora of new medications or therapeutics that their advocates promised. Industry veterans know that there are no easy solutions or panaceas in drug discovery and development. The process is inherently time-intensive, painstaking and tedious. And, despite what we scientists want to believe in our “heart of hearts,” there are no guarantees that simplicity and elegance will translate into safe and effective medications.

Until next time….

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

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

There has been some confusion surrounding the reporting of results from the Enhance Trial. As you know, the results from this study showed that the cholesterol-lowering drug Vytorin—a combination of Zetia and Zocor (a statin) —was no better than a generic version of Zocor by itself at controlling atherosclerosis.

In the Enhance clinical trial, 720 patients were treated with Vytorin or a generic version of Zocor and the amount of plaque that accumulated in the arteries of both groups was assessed by blood vessel imaging. Because Vytorin lowers LDL-cholesterol more than Zocor alone, both Schering –Plough and Merck (the companies that sponsored the trial) expected the patients who took Vytorin to have less growth of plaque in their arteries than those who took generic Zocor alone. As we all now know, this was not the case. In fact, there are some data which suggests that Vytorin treatment may actually enhance or promote plaque deposition and growth.

Since arterial plaque is closely associated with heart attack and stroke, the results from the Enhance trial led some to suggest that Vytorin doesn’t work any better than Zocor at preventing heart attack or stroke. While this may prove to be the case, there are currently no data to substantiate or refute this assertion. Those data will be generated in planned outcome trials that will measure the incidence of heart attack and stroke in patients taking Vytorin or Zocor. Merck and Schering-Plough began enrolling patients for these studies in 2006 and don’t expect any results before 2012. This may be too little, too late.

Merck and Schering have come under fire for not releasing the results from the Enhance trial in a timely fashion. A Congressional committee investigating the Vytorin controversy alleges that Merck and Schering Plough executives knew about the results of the Enhance studies at least two years before they released the data. The companies repeatedly delayed releasing the results of the trial, however, saying publicly that many of the images of the arteries were unclear and might need to be re-examined. Both companies have also have been criticized for delaying the initiation of the planned outcomes trials.

Shares of Merck and Schering-Plough plummeted yesterday following Sunday’s announcement at the American College of Cardiology meeting in Chicago.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (avoid NJ)!!!!!!!!!

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

An editorial published in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine and recommendations from an expert panel at an American College of Cardiology meeting being held in Chicago urged that the cholesterol-lowering medications Zetia and Vytorin should be used only as the last resort to treat patients with elevated LDL-cholesterol. Instead, the panel recommended that doctors and patients should use statins, older and sometimes cheaper medications, which have been clinically proven to lower cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke. The panel's recommendations were announced to the almost 30,000 physicians who were attending the conference.

As you may recall, Zetia and Vytorin, which reduce cholesterol levels by inhibiting its absorption from the intestinal tract, didn’t reduce the incidence of heart attack or stroke in patients taking the medications (in the Enhance clinical trial) even though LDL-cholesterol levels were lowered. Further, there is some emerging evidence which suggests that Zetia and Vytorin may actually speed rather than slow the development of plaque in arteries. Merck and Schering are conducting larger clinical studies (initiated in 2006) to measure effects of Zetia and Vytorin on heart disease and stroke. The results from these trials are not expected until 2012

Zetia and Vytorin are among the top selling drugs in the world with combined sales of $5 billion in 2007. Approximately 5 million people, including about 4.0 million Americans take the medications which were heavily advertised to US consumers. Many cardiologists believe that heavy marketing of the drugs has resulted in their over use. The fallout from the Enhance clinical trial controversy has already depressed the sales of both Zetia and Vytorin. A greater reduction in sales is anticipated as more doctors and patients digest the implication of the Enhance trial results.

The flap over the utility of Zetia and Vytorin will likely take a heavy toll on Schering Plough’s revenue stream. Analysts say that sales of Zetia and Vytorin produce almost 70% of Schering’s profits. The controversy will have less of a direct effect on Merck which co-markets Vytorin with Schering. However, Merck is still reeling from reports last week linking its popular asthma medication Singulair to suicide. 

Things are not looking too good in pharma land these days.

Until next time….

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

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

After weathering the Vioxx storm for the past three years, Merck again finds itself in choppy and unchartered waters. Still reeling from the Vytorin flap that erupted two months ago, there are new allegations that its blockbuster allergy and asthma medicine, Singulair, may be linked to suicide. The US Food and Drug administration (FDA) was quick (this time) to announce that it is launching an investigation into reports that suggest that Singulair may cause patients taking the medication to commit suicide. Merck received approval for Singulair in 1998 and it had sales of $4.3 billion in 2007.

There are several reasons why FDA quickly alerted the American public to its investigation into Singulair. First, FDA has been relentlessly chastised in recent months by Congress for not notifying Americans early enough in drug safety investigations. Historically, FDA has waited until the end of an investigation (rather than the beginning) before alerting the public about possible drug safety issues. Second, the agency was well aware of emerging and ongoing safety issues with Singulair. For example, over the last year, FDA regulators asked Merck to update Singulair’s label four times. These changes included information on side effects such as tremors, anxiousness, depression and suicidal ideation.

As part of its current investigation, FDA requested that  Merck “dig deeper into its clinical data on Singulair for any evidence of possible links to suicide.” Merck quickly responded and noted that none of the 11,000 patients enrolled in 40 Singular clinical trials had committed suicide. Of course this doesn’t mean that people taking Singulair didn’t think about committing suicide. In Merck’s defense, the company may not have thought to include a question about suicidal thoughts as part of Singulair’s clinical development program. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the safety profiles for many approved drugs are not fully realized until the drug has been on the market for several years. This is because the small numbers of patient used in the clinical trials for approval of a new medication are usually not sufficient to identify all  potential safety problems. Unforeseen  or unanticipated side effects typically begin to emerge only after a drug is used by larger numbers of people in the general population.  

For this reason, the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act requires that all companies that win approval for new medications are required to set up post marketing surveillance programs. The purpose of these programs is to report any and all side effects of approved drugs to the agency. The post marketing surveillance regulation stipulates that physicians, patients and drug manufacturers must report any side effects or adverse events to the agency. Based on the number of adverse events reports that it receives, FDA can launch an investigation to determine what regulatory actions, if any, should be taken by the drug’s manufacturer to deal with the safety problems. Possible regulatory actions include label changes, black box warnings, physician notification letters, Phase IV clinical trials and possible suspension or revocation of a drug license.

Luckily for Merck, the jury is still out (no pun intended) on Singulair. That said, the good news is that the drug safety and post marketing surveillance programs outlined in the FD&C act are working exactly the way they were designed to!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (avoid Whitehouse Station NJ)!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Oh, what a difference a couple of years or results from a pivotal clinical trial can have on a company’s financial outlook. As you may recall in 2005, Merck was in a shambles after the Vioxx scandal broke. Its CEO was ousted, its stock was trading at less than $35 per share and employee morale was at an all time low. After two short years, Richard Clark, a life-long Merck employee, was able to turn the company around. Merck’s stock reached a high of almost $61 last December and many of its employees were dancing in the streets of Rahway because their stock options were now worth more than the paper that they were printed on. But, like many things in life, all good things must come to an end.

Since December Merck’s stock price has plummeted to $40 and appears to be headed downward. What sparked the retreat was the release of results from the now infamous ENHANCE clinical trial which showed that Vytorin, which is co-marketed by Merck and Schering Plough, offered no greater benefit than a cheaper, generic version of Zocor (one of the two active ingredients of Vytorin) to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke. The fallout from this revelation has been intense and dramatic. Both Merck and Schering Plough are being investigated by Congress for marketing violations and the financial maneuvers’ of several senior executives from both companies are under intense scrutiny. 

Many industry analysts believe that Merck may be on the ropes again and are afraid that the company may slip back into the morass it found itself in after the Vioxx debacle.

I have always held Merck in high regard–no fewer than 15 people who I went to graduate school have worked at Merck at one time or another. Further, the Merck name used to be synonymous with “second to none” science and outstanding pharmaceutical products. Sadly, over the past decade Merck’s leadership has consistently placed profits before good science causing the American public to lose confidence in one of its flagship pharmaceutical companies. Maybe Dick Clark, who was around during Merck’s glory days, can restore Merck’s reputation by insisting that from now on, good science will always come before corporate profits. Time will tell….

Until next time….

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

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

Merck’s CEO, Dick Clark (maybe he should go by Richard?), seemingly had his work cut out for him when he assumed leadership of the company in May, 2005. At that time, Merck had withdrawn Vioxx from the market, its stock price had plummeted and the company was being sued by tens of thousands of people.  Thanks to the launch of several new products, including Vytorin and Gardasil, a brilliantly-conceived Vioxx legal strategy which resulted in a $4.85 billion settlement for much of the litigation, Merck‘s stock price is soaring and has been able to restore some of its former glory.

As a reward for his dedication and hard work, Mr. Clark received $14.7 million in 2007–an 80% increase over his 2006 compensation package. Don’t get me wrong; I am sure that he is a very talented, hard working guy who deserves every penny of his 2007 compensation package for bringing Merck back from the “dead”. That said, I can’t help but wonder what ex-Merck employees, who lost their jobs because of the Vioxx debacle, think about Mr. Clark’s compensation package. Given the growing paucity of pharmaceutical and biotechnology jobs in NJ, I suspect that some of them could use a little extra cash right about now!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try Merck they gotta be hiring)!!!!!!!!

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

Is it luck or good planning that has prompted many pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to set up manufacturing and research operations in Ireland? In my opinion, the recent Irish pharma and biotech explosion has little to do with luck and everything to do with strategic vision, excellent planning and a well trained, inexpensive workforce.

Currently, 28 out of the 50 top pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies in the world have facilities in Ireland. Some of these companies are Merck, Wyeth, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, Schering-Plough and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Seven out of 10 of the world’s top selling blockbuster drugs are now manufactured in Irish production facilities. 

Pharmaceutical companies were the first to set up shop in Ireland. However, biotechnology is growing rapidly and biomanufacturing is starting to over shadow traditional small molecule production. Companies including Wyeth, Centocor, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Organon Biosciences (now part of Schering Plough) and Allergan manufacture biologics and biotechnology products in Ireland. In fact, Ireland is home to the world’s largest biomanufacturing facility, Wyeth’s € 1.3 billion Grange Castle near Dublin.

So why pharma and biotech are companies flocking to Ireland? First, the Irish labor force is well trained, everyone speaks English (albeit with an Irish lilt) and wages are still low. Second, Ireland has the lowest corporate taxes in the entire European Union. Further, there are R&D tax credits and financial support for start ups.  For example, there is financial support to purchase consultancy and innovation vouchers worth €10,000, a substantial amount of money for any startup! Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Irish government had the foresight to create a public/private enterprise known as the National Development Plan (2000-2006) that invested € 2.5 billion to create an Irish R&D infrastructure.

The Irish strategy–“built it and they will come”– has certainly paid off handsomely for Ireland. Another country that has embraced a similar strategy is Singapore–which through a public/private initiative has been building a vibrant life sciences and biotechnology industry since 1999. Both countries now compete for pharma and biotech business. For example, in late 2007, Merck decided to build a € 200 million vaccine facility at Carlow Town in Southeast Ireland. Novartis, on the other hand, opted for Singapore to build a new $180 million pharmaceutical tabletting facility along side of its API production plant.

Unlike Ireland, the American pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industries are in trouble and losing their competitive edge. Perhaps the US can learn a thing or two from the Irish to give its bioscience industry a much needed shot-in-the arm.

Until next year….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

Amgen announced yesterday that its osteoporosis drug, denosumab, was safe and outperformed Merck’s Fosamax to improve bone density in a small Phase III clinical trial that included almost 1,200 patients. Unlike Fosamax which is taken orally once a month, denosumab (a fully humanized monoclonal antibody) only needs to be injected twice a year. As mentioned in a previous post, Fosamax will be losing patent protection and Merck recently announced that it will sell an authorized generic version of the drug. Fosamax and its generic equivalent represent the stiffest competition for denosumab if it receives regulatory approval.

Despite being the largest biotechnology company in the world, Amgen has struggled for the past year due to declining sales from its EPO franchise. Amgen’s pipeline is thin and company executives have bet the future on denosumab becoming a top seller. That said, the key measure for any osteoporosis drug is whether it can reduce or prevent bone fractures. Results from a pivotal Phase III clinical trial with over 8,000 patients comparing denosumab to placebo in fracture prevention are expected later in 2008.

I bet  a lot of employees in a Thousand Oaks have their fingers crossed!

Until next time….

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

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

Merck and Schering Plough have taken out two-page ads in several major newspapers defending their cholesterol drugs Zetia and Vytorin whose efficacy has been seriously questioned following release of data from a clinical study called ENHANCE late last week. The new ad campaign takes direct aim at the fallout from ENHANCE which showed that neither Zetia nor Vytorin (Zetia plus Zocor) is more effective in preventing heart attack or stroke than a cheaper generic version of Zocor alone.

The ad offsets the most important line in boldface: "All of us at Merck and Schering-Plough proudly stand behind the established efficacy and safety profiles of ZETIA and VYTORIN." And then it's "signed" by Robert J. Spiegel MD, Chief Medical Officer of Schering and Merck’s VP of External Medical and Scientific Affairs, Richard Murray MD. However, this advertising blitz may be too little, too late. Consumer and physician confidence in Merck and Schering Plough have fallen precipitously after the ENHANCE data were released last week.

According to various sources, the companies reportedly spent more than $100 million on a highly visible, slick marketing campaign to promote Vytorin and Zetia last year. Who doesn’t recognize the ubiquitous commercials with the folksy violin music and the "colorful" relatives dressed to look like food to accentuate the point that cholesterol levels are related to family history (genetics) and the foods that one consume. They have taken a new tact with today’s ads which showcase a matter-of-fact advertising approach. We'll see if it the new, less flamboyant advertising campaign can staunch the hemorrhaging that it taking place today at both companies.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

I want to thank for his intrepid reporting on the Vytorin scandal and keeping BioJobBlog abreast of all late-breaking news and rumors that are flying about. 

In today’s post Ed reports that  “…..the House Energy and Commerce Committee wants to know more about the so-called independent panel formed to review the Vytorin trial data, the study’s Data Safety Monitoring Board, stock sales by Schering-Plough execs and the amount of money spent on Vytorin by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), given the Enhance trial results showed the drug wasn’t more effective than cheap generic versions of Zocor, which is part of the Vytorin combo therapy.

The congressmen leading the probe - John Dingell and Bart Stupak, both Democrats from Michigan - sent separate letters today seeking all sorts of info from CMS and Schering-Plough. Already, they’re looking at whether Merck and Schering-Plough concealed or manipulated clinical trial data, given that the release of the Vytorin data was delayed nearly two years and the primary endpoint was briefly changed without the consent of the lead investigator. The probe is also focusing on the heavy advertising for Vytorin.

The Vytorin scandal coupled with the Vioxx debacle has done little to instill any consumer confidence in the pharmaceutical industry or the US Food and Drug Administration. Industry’s growing involvement in the drug regulatory approval process coupled with the Bush Administration’s intentional destabilization of FDA has resulted in the recent approval of drugs with dubious therapeutic efficacy and questionable safety profiles. 

Pharma has made it abundantly clear that profits are more important than patients’ health or safety. It is time for the Congress and the American people to stuff the corporate genie and its unbridled avarice back in the bottle!

Until next time….

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

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

Fred Hassan joined Schering Plough as its CEO five years ago. At that time, Mr. Hassan inherited a company that was being investigated by FDA for regulatory compliance violations and the SEC was investigating it former CEO for investing and accounting irregularities. Since his arrival at the company, Mr. Hassan increased sales of key products, filled an empty product pipeline and returned profitability to a company that posted losses in 2003 and 2004.  

Much of his success can be attributed to Zetia and Vytorin, cholesterol-lowering drugs Schering Plough sells jointly with Merck & Co. Zetia lowers blood cholesterol levels by preventing absorption of dietary cholesterol from the gut. Vytorin is a combination product that contains Zetia and Merck’s statin drug called Zocor. Statins help to reduce blood cholesterol by inhibiting its production in the liver. Sales of both drugs have doubled to $5 billion a year since 2005. But that rich revenue stream is at risk following this week's disclosure that results from a large scale clinical trial called ENHANCE (which was initiated in 2002) showed that Vytorin did not reduce the incidence of atherosclerosis or lower the risk of heart attacks or strokes.

Schering and Merck said Monday that results of the now-controversial ENHANCE study showed that Vytorin failed to slow progression of heart disease more effectively than simvastatin generic form of Zocor that is sold at a far lower price. After learning about the results of the study, Dr. Steven E. Nissen, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic  quipped "Here we are, six years after this drug was marketed and promoted with a massive marketing campaign and has become a $5 billion drug" without evidence that it works as well as a statin. Now, "the first trial we have, is reported much too late and doesn't show really any evidence of benefit."

As reported in the Wall Street Journal “The impact of the finding was amplified by a long delay in releasing the results, and the revelation in November that the researchers considered altering the study's primary goals -- widely considered a violation of scientific protocol. The developments exposed the companies to suspicions -- which they have denied -- that they had postponed announcing the results because they were unfavorable. Also, the results of the Enhance trial were announced at a press conference rather than published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.”

“The missteps are likely to dent the companies' finances and reputation. Congress is investigating whether the companies improperly deferred publicizing the results, and yesterday lawmakers expressed concern about Vytorin ads. In addition, prominent medical professionals have questioned the drug's benefits.”

The fallout from ENHANCE is having other negative effects and possible long term consequences at Schering Plough. Yesterday, for example, widely circulated reports questioned the timing of stock trades made by the president of Schering's pharmaceutical division, Carrie Cox, in April and May 2007 that totaled about $28 million. Also, yesterday, leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee widened their investigation of the Enhance trial disclosure to include Ms. Cox’s stock sale and the high-profile Vytorin "food and family" ad campaign (the ones where people are dressed to resemble the food that they can eat while taking Vytorin).

Investor unrest is focused less on Merck than on Schering, whose bottom line relies much more on the drugs than Merck's does. Analysts estimate that Vytorin and Zetia account for more than half of Schering's earnings. Other analysts estimate the figure is closer to 60% for 2007, compared with about 15% in 2007 for Merck.

The big question that still remains is: If Vytorin has no greater benefit than a statin, why did FDA approve it? The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration based on its ability to reduce low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL). As is the case with many drugs the agency didn't demand proof that using the drug actually reduced the risk of heart attacks or stroke. Instead, they relied solely on surrogate markers like LDL cholesterol levels.

The Enhance results are now part of a larger debate over what kind of evidence the FDA should require before approving a drug. Drug manufacturers argue that studies that answer questions about heart attacks, strokes and mortality can take many years, thousands of patients, cost millions of dollars and would lead to prolonged delays getting a drug to market. Consequently, drug companies should be allowed to use surrogate markers to prove drug efficacy. Using this logic, it appears perfectly reasonable for drug manufacturers to bring expensive, new drugs to market (to increase profits and bolster their stock prices) despite the fact that they offer no greater health benefits than cheaper generic versions of similar drugs! According to FDA regulations, drugs will be approved only when available evidence indicates that they are SAFE and EFFICACIOUS —not one or the other!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (I would avoid New Jersey for now)!!!!!!!!!

• 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

Despite the Martha Stewart-Sam Waksal insider trading scandal in 2001, ImClone, the company founded by Waksal in 1984, is doing well and managed to sell $1.1 billion of its anti-cancer drug Erbitux in 2006. Erbitux is a monoclonal antibody that is approved to treat colorectal cancer and certain head and neck cancers. ImClone co-markets Erbitux, its only product, with Bristol Myers Squibb (US) and Merck KGA (Europe).

In September, ImClone agreed to pay over $65 million in cash to Waltham, Mass.-based Repligen - a portion of that was designated to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology - to get royalty-free rights to U.S. Patent No. 4,663,281 and U.S. Patent No. 5,665,578. Repligen had contended that ImClone infringed both patents when developing and manufacturing Erbitux for commercial purposes.

Now, here is where it gets interesting. Repligen gained the rights to Patent No. 5,665,578 from Abbott Laboratories via a sublicensing agreement. Although Repligen settled with ImClone over the disputed patent, Abbot has not. 

Late last week, Abbot filed papers in federal court requesting a face-to-face interview with Waksal who is currently serving a seven-year term in the Otisville Correctional Facility in New York. Abbot contends that Sam “played a central role in numerous issues significant to this [patent] litigation.” ImClone is not opposing the request. I guess ImClone knows a lot more about Sam than we do!

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

Reuters reported today that Merck & Co Inc has sold a manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania to PRWT Services Inc, as part of Merck's global restructuring of its manufacturing operations.

PRWT Services has entered into a five-year supply agreement with Merck valued at $100 million to $200 million a year, the companies said in a statement.

The Cherokee manufacturing plant in Riverside, Pennsylvania, employs 400 people, and produces antibiotics for humans and animals. As many of you may know, Merck’s CEO, Richard Clark ran manufacturing operations at Merck for 30 years before being appointed its top executive. Maybe he knows something that we don’t about the future of antibiotics?

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Several lawyers representing people who sued Merck over Vioxx asked the federal judge overseeing the $4.85 billion Vioxx settlement for the freedom to keep some of their clients outside of the settlement while allowing others to accept it. Currently, it is an all or nothing deal—if the lawyers want any clients to receive money from the settlement they must recommend the deal to all of their clients. This was a crucial part of the settlement offered by Merck. A Merck lawyer said that the company will oppose the motion and that the settlement had been carefully devised to be fair to plaintiffs and the company. For the deal to take effect, 85% of all plaintiffs must agree to all terms of the settlement.

The emergency motion may have been prompted by the recent firestorm surrounding Merck’s cholesterol-lowering drug Zetia. Maybe the lawyers think that renewed questions about Merck’s ongoing reluctance to release pertinent safety information about its products may induce juries to render positive verdicts in certain jury trials involving patients who took Vioxx continuously for more than a year. That said, about 18 Vioxx cases have been tried and the plaintiffs have lost most of them. Nevertheless, as the old adage goes: “It never hurts to ask.”

Merck is certainly in the hot seat today and right before the holidays too!!!!!!!  

Until next time…

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

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

There is a storm brewing around Zetia, Merck and Schering Plough’s blockbuster cholesterol-lowering drug. However, let me preface this post by reminding everyone that all drugs have side effects and if a drug’s benefits outweigh its risks then it will likely be prescribed to patients. That said, new evidence has been uncovered which shows that Merck, and  Schering Plough, conducted  at least 8 clinical trials from 2000 to 2003– to evaluate Zetia’s risk to the liver when taken with other cholesterol-lowering drugs (statins) – but chose to not publish the results of those studies. This is what we know about Zetia:

• Zetia has annual sales of over $ 5 billion
• Despite no evidence that Zetia’s cholesterol-lowering ability actually reduces the incidence of heart attack or stroke in patients who take the medication, it was approved by the US FDA in 2002. A 10,000 patient Zetia clinical study called ENHANCE is currently underway to determine whether the drug’s ability to lower cholesterol really translates into a reduction in heart attacks and strokes
• Millions of people who take Zetia also take statins such as Zocor, Lipitor, Pavachol, Crestor and Mevacor to lower cholesterol (Vytorin, Merck’ new cholesterol-lowering drug contains Zetia and Zocor in a single pill)
• From 2000 to 2003 Merck and Schering Plough conducted 8 long-term safety studies of Zetia in combination with a variety of statins but only published the results from 3 of the 8 studies. Also, the unpublished studies were not listed on industry websites where companies are supposed to register by law the results of all ongoing clinical trials after 2002 (because some of these trials were initiated before 2002 the law does not apply to them)
• FDA supposedly reviewed the results of the unpublished studies and approved Zetia use with statins anyway
• Prior to its approval in 2002, at least one internal FDA reviewer recommended that Zetia not be approved for use with statins because the combination caused liver disease in animals. Also, since 2006 a number of case reports have been published in medical journals that suggest the combination of Zetia and statins has caused severe liver damage in some patients
• In the US, Zetia’s product label only contains mild warnings about the drug’s potential to cause liver damage. However, since 2005, product labels in Canada and Australia have carried strong warnings about Zetia’s potential to cause hepatitis, pancreatitis and depression—warnings that have seemingly been ignored in the US

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

GlaxoSmithKline announced today

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

Addex Pharmaceuticals-Switzerland ($109 million plus a possible $61 million in royalty payments); develops new novel drugs to treat Parkinson’s disease.

GTx-Tennessee, ($40 million up front, plus a $30 million equity investment, possibly up to $15 million in supplemental research funding and up to $422 million in royalty payments). Merck was interested in the company’s lead candidate, a treatment for muscle loss in cancer patients. Also, Merck is investing in the company’s selective androgen receptor modulator program which it hopes can be used to treat a range of musculoskeletal disorders.

Ariad Pharmaceuticals-Massachusetts, ($75 million upfront, with a potential for a much as $925 million more). Merck is interested in one of Ariad’s lead kinase inhibitor candidates that may be used to treat a variety of cancers.

Avalon Pharmaceuticals-Maryland, ($200 million up front plus milestone and potential royalty payments). Both companies will participate in a research collaboration to develop new drugs against undisclosed cancer targets.

Idera Pharmaceuticals-Massachusetts, ($30 million upfront with a potential for up to another $425 million contingent upon research results from of two-year long research collaboration. Idera is working on toll-like receptor agonists which may be useful to develop vaccines against bacterial and fungal disease as well as Alzheimer’s disease. If anything comes out of the collaboration, the deal gives Merck exclusive rights to the discoveries.

Although Merck’s strategy is not a unique one (everyone seems to be doing it), they once again have outstanding scientists and executives running the company who can recognize good science when they find it!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (give Merck a call)!!!!!!!

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

The New York Times reports today that Merck’s profit forecasts for this year and next fell a penny short of Wall Street expectations sending its shares lower. Ah, what a difference a penny can make!

The company’s stock price has risen, trading in recent days near its 52-week high of $60.49 after it announced less than one month ago it would pay $4.85 billion to settle tens of thousands of lawsuits stemming from its painkiller Vioxx, which it withdrew from the market in 2004.

Merck said that while it expected higher sales of its cervical cancer-fighting vaccine Gardasil, its diabetes treatment Januvia and its allergy treatment Singulair next year, generic competition would drive down sales of another top seller, Fosamax, an osteoporosis treatment.

Aside from Vioxx debacle, Merck has been on somewhat of a roll for the past three years. It was able to bolster its stock price during this time by instituting a cost-cutting plan that included draconian-like job cuts in 2005. Merck, which has already cut about 6,000 jobs under the plan, said yesterday that it would reach its target of eliminating 7,000 positions by the end of 2008.

This coupled with the recent layoffs at Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Johnson and Johnson suggest that now is not a good time to be looking for pharmaceutical or biotechnology jobs in New Jersey.

Until next time….

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

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

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