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

Disposing of unused prescription and over the counter drugs including antibiotics, antidepressants, anticonvulsants and birth control pills by dumping them down the toilet has contaminated the drinking water supply for 41 million Americans. Further, unused prescription drugs stockpiled in medicine cabinets can contribute to drug abuse or overdoses by children, teens and adults. Currently, there are no guidelines or regulations in place to deal with the safe disposal of unused consumer medicines and drugs.

According to a post on today’s Pharmalot blog, a Washington State senator is introducing legislation (for the fourth time) to develop an environmental safe plan to dispose of unused and potentially harmful medications. The plan calls for dropping off unused medicines at local pharmacies; a service that would be underwritten by the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture the drugs. And, wouldn’t you know it, PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry trade groups is lobbying and fighting against the legislation for the fourth time. In addition to PhRMA, the Consumer Health Products Associations which represents manufacturers of over-the-counter drug and the Washington Biotechnology and Biomedical Association are fighting the proposed legislation. Some municipalities like the City of Puyallup, WA allow persons to dispose of prescription medications including cancer treatments, painkillers, antidepressants and statins in lock boxes in the hallway of the local police department. However, these municipalities are the exception not the norm.

The groups opposing the legislation contend that regulations are unnecessary because contaminating drugs found in drinking water results not from improper disposal practices but through urination and defecation. In fact, they contend that the best way to dispose of unused medicines is in the household trash. But what about leeching of these drugs from landfills into aquifers and other sources of drinking water you ask? And what about dealing with potential drug abuse and sale of illegal prescription drugs? 

Interestingly, I had some minor surgery last week that required some pain medication and as I was rummaging through my medicine cabinet, I found a at least eight bottles of pain medication prescribed for various family members dating back to 1999. I thought about getting rid of the expired pills, but I had no idea about what the best disposal method may be. Consequently, the pill collection is still taking up space in my medicine cabinet. And, with two teenagers in the house, I am starting to get a little anxious! 

That said, it makes perfect sense to me that there ought to be regulations guiding the disposal of drugs in the US. And, because drug manufacturers have made huge profits on their products, I see no reason why drugmakers should not support and help to underwrite programs to safely dispose of unused prescription and over-the-counter medications. Maybe people’s negative impression of big pharma would improve if the powers at be would just suck it up for once and pay to help to solve problems that helped to create!

Until next time...

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

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

Last week, I reported in a post that in 2011 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had approved a near-record of 35 new medicines. Coincidentally, earlier this week, Ed Silverman posted on the Pharmalot blog that prescription drug recalls are rising and nearing historical records. 

According to Ed, “During the third quarter of this year, the number of pharmaceutical recalls jumped to 150, compared with about 90 recalls during each of the first two quarters of 2011, according to FDA Enforcement Reports. Moreover, the recent tally dwarfs the roughly 65 recalls that were made during the last quarter of 2010 and nearly doubled the 80 recalls that were notched during the 2010 third quarter.”

The reason for the spike in drug recalls? Some suggest that FDA is getting tough and still trying to reinvent itself after the 2004 Vioxx debacle and the tainted heparin incident. Also, Congress is putting pressure on the agency to better enforce manufacturing regulation and supply chain management practices. Sadly, the only way for FDA to accomplish this is by increasing the number of inspections that it conducts on both foreign and domestic manufacturing facilities. And, given that the agency’s budget for enforcement activities has not increased much over the past few years; it is unlikely that increased regulatory scrutiny will occur any time soon.

Finally, for those of you who may not know. FDA does not have the authority to recall drugs. Recalls are voluntary and must be orchestrated by the company that manufactures the product in question. Luckily, FDA has many financial and legal methods at its disposal to induce companies to “voluntarily” recall suspect or tainted products from the US market.

Until next time...

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

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

Abbott Laboratories today announced that it will split itself into two companies by spinning off its branded prescription drug business and creating a second company responsible for its medical implants, diagnostic tests and baby formula businesses.

The pharmaceutical company will exclusively sell its branded prescription drugs (including its blockbuster biologic Humira) and will be lead by Abbott’s Richard Gonzalez who currently head the company’s pharmaceutical business. Current Abbott CEO Miles White will lead the diversified medical products company. 

The reason for the split is to allow investors to value each of the companies on their distinct characteristic. Abbott’s decision to split the company is consistent with the prevailing notion that companies that sell both prescription drugs and consumer products don’t perform well. This led Bristol Myers Squibb to sell off its medical devices and consumer products divisions several years ago. Interestingly, prescription pharmaceuticals/consumer products/medical devices were de rigueur in the 1990s and early 2000s. Abbott’s decision leaves companies like Pfizer, Novartis and Johnson & Johnson as examples of the few remaining companies that still house pharmaceuticals, devices and consumer goods under one roof. Don’t be surprised if in the future these companies also decide to spin off or divest themselves of their consumer goods/medical devices divisions.

Finally, while the split may be good for investors, it may not be that great for Abbott employees. Usually, spin offs or divestitures

Until next time..

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

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

Over the past week or so there have been daily snippets on various media platforms about business deals and opportunities in the Indian and Chinese life sciences market. While it is not news that many life sciences companies are expanding operations into these markets, the growing frequency of news items about the “goings on” in both markets are noteworthy.

The first bit of news that started the Indian and Chinese life sciences news avalanche, was a note on May 29 that appeared on The Economic Times’ website that reported that New Delhi-based JB Chemical and Pharmaceuticals planned to double the size of its medical sales reps to 1,500 over the next two years to increase its penetration into rural Indian markets. The company had previously divested it over-the-counter consumer business in Russia and other Commonwealth Independent States (CIS; composed of countries from the former Soviet Union) to start up new divisions in gynecology and dental products.

The same day, another New Delhi-based drugmaker called Lupin that specializes in generic drugs, announced that it plans to launch 50 new products by FY12; twelve of which will be generic drugs launched in the US. Both bits of information suggest that new previously untapped commercial opportunities are rapidly beginning to emerge in India and that Indian drug makers are looking to compete in the US and Western European markets that were previously dominated by American, Western European and Japanese companies.

In other India-related pharmaceutical news, an article appeared on June 2 at the Online Pharma Times website that reported that Shlomo Yanai, CEO of the Israeli generic pharmaceutical giant Teva, had flown to India to discuss potential collaborations with pharmaceutical companies there. While most analysts do not think that an acquisition is likely—Teva agreed to buy US-based Cephalon in May for $6.8 billion and also paid $460 million to acquire a controlling stake in Japanese generics group Taiyo Pharmaceuticals—it signals a growing interest by foreign companies to do deals in India to establish a presence it that market.

Like the Indian market, the Chinese market is beginning to heat up. An article at Bloomberg.com published on June 1 reported that Novo Nordisk will boosts its investment in China to preserve its dominance in the diabetes market after rival Sanofi announced a new foray into the Chinese market.

According to a report issued last fall by the International Market Analysis Research and Consulting Group, the Chinese diabetes market is expected to grow from $642 million in 2009 to more that $2.8 billion in 2015. The reason for the increase is attributed to the trend of more people moving from rural areas to cities and changes in eating habits and lifestyles that are contributing to a growing Chinese obesity problem. At present the US Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta estimates that roughly 8.3 percent of the U.S. population and 6.6 percent of the global population has diabetes

Novo first entered the Chinese market about 15 years ago and in 2002 created a diabetes research center and in 2007, in association with the Chinese Academy of Sciences established a foundation to fight diabetes. This year, the company plans on expanding its insulin packaging plant in China becoming the world’s largest insulin packaging facility.

Likewise, in 2005 Sanofi created a diabetes clinic. Three years later is expanded the clinics operations, established a clinical trial center and entered into a partnership with the Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences to develop treatments for diabetes, cancer and neurological diseases.

On Jun 3, Pfizer, the world’s largest drugmaker (for now) announced that it plans to partner in a joint venture with China’s Zhejian Hisun Pharmaceutical Company to produce generic drugs for the emerging Chinese market. According to the post on Bloomberg.com

“Pfizer is looking for new sources of revenue before it loses U.S. patent protection in November for Lipitor, the cholesterol medication that was the world’s best-selling drug last year with $10.7 billion in sales. Off-patent medicines, including branded generics, are one of the fastest growing segments in the global pharmaceutical market, Pfizer and Hisun said in a joint press release.”

At present, Pfizer is the top drug company in China (by sales) followed by AstraZeneca and Sanofi according to information supplied by the prescription drug intelligence firm IMS. The size of the Chinese drug market is project to grow by 25 percent this year and rough 60% of the existing market is dominated by generic drugs.

Finally, Chinese pharmaceutical companies are also beginning to invest in the US market. Late last week, the Tianjin Tasly Pharmaceutical Group signed an agreement with the State of Maryland to invest $40 million to build a tradition Chinese medicine (TCM) facility to provide TCM training and information. According to a press release:

“Tasly Pharmaceutical is currently preparing materials for approval by America’s Food and Drug Administration and plans to sell compound danshen drip pills in US and European markets. The medicine’s primary ingredient is obtained from the salvia miltiorrhiza species and is used to treat cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. Danshen is also known colloquially as red sage or Chinese sage.”

I think it is time to pay more attentions to the ebb and flow of the Indian and Chinese markets!

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try India and China)!!!!!!

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

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Japan’s largest pharmaceutical company, yesterday announced its intention to purchase the Swiss drug maker Nycomed for 8 to 10 billion euros ($11.4-14 billion). While the deal is not certain to close, it signals Takeda’s intention to purchase its way into the US and European markets.

Takeda acquired Cambridge, MA-based Millennium Pharmaceuticals in 2008 for $8.8 billion, the largest foreign acquisition ever by a Japanese company. The Millennium acquisition was intended to bolster Takeda’s competencies in genomics and oncology drug discovery. If Takeda is successful in its bid, Nycomed would enhance the company’s standing in treatments for gastric, respiratory and inflammatory disorders. Nycomed has operations in roughly 70 countries, with Europe representing 50 percent of the company’s sale and emerging markets 38 percent.

Takeda’s chief executive officer Yasuchika Hasegawa has pursued an aggressive M&A strategy since assuming control of the company in 2003. Historically, Japanese drugmakers intentionally remained small and were content doing business in local and other Asian markets. However, Hasegawa has changed the “game” and has forced some of Takeda’s rivals to emulate his global strategy. To that end, in recent years Daiichi Sankyo Company has purchased Plexxikon and Ranbaxy and Astellas acquired OSI pharmaceuticals as part of a westward expansion.

While Takeda remains Japan’s largest pharmaceutical company, net profit slumped 17 percent last year and the company is losing patent protection for its largest selling drugs, Prevacid (ulcers) and Actos (diabetes). Like Takeda, Nycomed sales are being hit by the loss of patent protection for its largest selling drug Protonix (antacid). Worldwide sales of the drug plummeted by almost 28 percent. Therefore, it would appear that Takeda’s pursuit of Nycomed is based more on its pipeline rather than currently marketed products.

Stay tuned for late-breaking news on the deal!

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

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

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

Depending upon the source, the cost of bringing a new prescription drug to market these days ranges from roughly $1.2 to 1.5 billion. While there is no question that clinical studies represent the most costly aspect of getting new drugs approved, the hidden costs—mainly promotion and marketing—are what actually inflate the costs of new drug development. Not surprisingly, drugmakers fail to disclose that these costs are included in the estimates for new drug development. If these costs were eliminated from the total, then the cost of developing new drugs will be significantly less than the current $1.2 to $1.5 billion price tag.

I suspect that many BioJobBlog readers—mainly those who work in the drug industry—will likely write me off as someone who doesn’t know what he is talking about. But, an interesting tidbit that I found in an article in today’s New York Times entitled “A Fight Over How Drugs are Pitched” suggests that my claims ought not be summarily dismissed simply because I am a “left-leaning histrionic democrat.” To wit, according to IMS Health (a competitive intelligence firm that tracks physician prescription rates) in 2009 alone, the branded prescription drug industry spent about $6.3 billion on marketing visits to doctors! This amount does not include costs associated with marketing and advertising that support direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising campaigns that are run by companies that sell approved prescription drugs. DTC costs are generally much higher than those spent on direct marketing to physicians.

It is important to remember that a drug maker’s main goal is to convince physicians to prescribe “their” drugs. After all, physicians not patients write prescriptions! That said, physician prescribing behaviors are vitally important to the success or failure of a marketed prescription drug. Consequently, it should come as no surprise that marketing costs are factored into the cost associated with new drug development. Obviously, if less money was spent on marketing than the cost of bringing new drugs to market would likely be substantially less.

Interestingly, the States of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine recently enacted laws to limit the uses of a doctor’s prescription records for marketing. On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case, Sorrell v. IMS Health that tests whether Vermont’s prescription confidentiality law violates the free speech protections of the First Amendment. The federal government, the attorneys general of several dozen states, AARP, professional medical associations, privacy groups and the New England Journal of Medicine have filed briefs in support of Vermont’s law. The National Association of Chain Drugstores, the Association of National Advertisers and news organizations like Bloomberg and The Associated Press have filed briefs aligning themselves with the data firm.

Although a Vermont federal district court upheld the law after a lawsuit challenging the statute brought by IMS Health and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an appellate court overturned the decision suggesting that it violates free speech provisions afforded by the First Amendment of the US constitution.

It will be interesting to see how the “Supremes” adjudicate the appeal given the growing recognition that laws and regulations designed to control medical costs and minimize safety risks associated with newly approved drugs are becoming increasingly necessary.

Until next time...

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

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

Can getting high be more important than sex? Probably not if you are in your teens or early 20s, but if you are of  an age where managing the nausea associated with cancer chemotherapy or the pain of glaucoma then medical marijuana is likely to be more important than the need for sex! But, to be fair, despite the title of this post, Viagra will lose patent protection shortly (in some places it already has) and the drugs sales have been shrinking. Nevertheless, a report authored by See Change LLC, a Colorado company that provides investment advice to businesses found that the sale of  that medical marijuana has already reached $1.7 billion (in states where it is legal) as compared with annual Viagra sales of $1.9 billion!  

Unfortunately, See Change LLC is charging $1,150 for the report. And since I don't have the money to purchase  it, I cannot determine the veracity or accuracy of the report. But, according to comments made by the editor of the report roughly 1 in 4 Americans lives in a state in which medical marijuana is legal, and that nearly 25 million people in those states have medical problems for which the drug can be prescribed. The report suggests that medical marijuana sales will reach $8.9 billion in five years.

Despite repeated scientific findings that medical marijuana can be used to effectively treat a variety of clinical indications that include chronic pain, nausea and anxiety, the myth of marijuana as a gateway drug to more serious drug like cocaine, heroin and others has been indelibly burned into the American psyche—not withstanding the statistics that show that prescription drugs like OcyContin, fentanyl and methamphetamine are the most abused drugs in America.  

While marijuana hasn’t been a part of my life for over 35 years, there is no question that it has enormous therapeutic value and ought to be legally prescribed when appropriate. In my opinion, the only thing that is preventing marijuana from being legalized is a business model that allows corporate America and the US government to maximize profits  from sale of the "deadly weed." 

It is time for Americans to forever expunge the "unbridled horrors" of Refer Madness from their collective psyches!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (be careful out there)

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

The life sciences industry is all a-Twitter (sorry) about social media and its implications for future business opportunities. Nevertheless, despite the obvious “upside” of social media, as is always the case in the pharmaceutical industry, most companies don’t want to be the first to do anything innovative or novel (go figure).  

Obviously, there are many risks associated with being first in anything. But, the aversion to being first in the industry to “rock the boat” is more pronounced in the pharmaceutical industry than in most others. That said, companies like Novo Nordisk (the first successful promotional product Twitter campaign), Johnson and Johnson ( the first company to blog) and Boehringer Ingelheim (using Twitter for conversational purposes not just a corporate news feed) at various times, dared to go where no company has gone before with the social media experiment. And, despite the apprehension and almost palpable trepidation exhibited by these companies, no overt consequences have resulted from the bold moves made by these social media pioneers. It now appears that there is another new benchmark for companies involved in the pharmaceutical social media experiment; the first ever sponsored pharma Twitter Chat held by @AstraZenecaUS.

This event was first reported (as far as I can tell) by Mark Senak, the author of the informative EyeonFDA blog and one of the leading pharmaceutical social media watchdogs. The Twitter Chat (under the hash tag #rxsave) was held by @AstraZeneca to discuss with its followers ways in which patients can save money on prescription drugs. While I didn’t participate in this somewhat paradoxical chat —a prescription drug companies discussing ways in which patients may save money on their expensive prescription drugs? —it does demonstrate willingness on AstraZeneca’s part to interact with prospective customers in a meaningful way to help them overcome financial barriers to access to potentially life- altering or-saving prescription drugs!

Although there are still no regulatory guidelines governing the use of social media by life sciences companies, the willingness of @AstraZenecaUS to put itself on the line is very refreshing. In my opinion, it is an important first step to help to “humanize” pharmaceutical companies. Also, it demonstrates a willingness by a pharmaceutical company to provide help to persons who perhaps cannot afford or are struggling to gain access to the prescription drugs that they need!

Hat tip and kudos to @AstraZenecaUS!

Until next time...

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

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

Whether you like President Obama or not, the changes he made in the leadership at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is beginning to yield results. After just two years, the agency is well on its way to modernization and overcoming its descent into the dark ages during the failed Bush Administration.

Mark Senak, the intrepid author of the EyeonFDA blog has been assiduously following and blogging about many of the new things going on at the agency. First, in a post a last week, Mark noted that FDA has updated its website and created a product recall page that collects recall information on all of the products that it regulates and deposited it in an easy to find product recall page. With product recalls in the food and life sciences industry increasing in frequency, this page will help to alert consumers about tainted products before learning of them on the nightly news. 

Second, Mark points out that FDA has finally entered the 21^st century and is now fully engaged in social media.

“FDA begins to join the 21st Century launching a Facebook page that has been long anticipated on this blog. FDA has not completed the Social Media Quadrant - (1) a blog, (2) several twitter feeds (3) a YouTube channel, and (4) a Facebook page.  And as added good measure, the agency opened a Flickr page.  The agency is now fully engaged in activities that many in the industry it regulates think is forbidden them.... And the beat goes on.”

Finally, earlier this week FDA announced that it would hold long-awaited public hearings to get input on proposed biosimilar regulatory guidance. As Mark duly notes, this process is likely to be contentious and protracted.    

"The FDA has set November 2-3 for a meeting to get input on a wide span of questions regarding the development of a regulatory pathway for biosimilars.  The scope of the questions is demonstrative of the number of outstanding issues the agency faces and will likely result in a protracted process. "

Central to the debate (and ultimate success of biosimilars) is the question of interchangeability and substitution of name brand products with biosimilar molecules. According to Mark, the agency will focus on the following questions

"What factors should the agency consider in determining whether a proposed interchangeable biological product can be "expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient?"

"What factors should the agency consider in evaluating the potential risk related to alternating or switching between use of the proposed interchangeable biological product and the reference product or among interchangeable biological products?"

What has become patently obvious to many of us who have been following the debate over the last decade is that unless biosimilars are interchangeable or substitutable for brand name biologics, the commercial success of the biosimilar industry may be in serious jeopardy. Put simply, there is no question that safe and effective biosimilars can be manufactured; the real question is whether or not physicians will prescribe biosimilar products if they are required to be branded by regulatory agencies. This is because physicians are reluctant to switch patients to new biologic products if a patient is doing well on a currently prescribed regimen. Since most physicians pay little attention to drug pricing, it is highly unlikely that they will switch a patient to product simply because there may be a 20 percent reduction in drug price. And, unless biosimilar products are deemed interchangeable with their branded counterparts, pharmacists (based on insurance formularies) will not be able to offer patients a generic equivalent of a name brand biologics. 

With the cost of biologic treatments skyrocketing, it will be interesting to see what the agency will do with this question.

Until next time...

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

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

I read a fascinating article today posted on MedEdNews Insider Blog about the formation of a new agency called Rx Entertainment that helps to match celebrities with direct-to-consumer advertising campaigns created by pharmaceutical companies. Admittedly, I hadn’t thought much about the matching process, but in the past I have posted a few rants about direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC), Brooke Shields hawking Latisse for Allergan and the Robert Jarvik Lipitor brouhaha.

So, the post about an entertainment agency that helps to match celebrities with DTC prescription drug advertising campaigns piqued my interest. The blog post was actually an interview that was conducted by the blogger with the founder of Entertainment Rx (I love the name)! The interviewer asked the Rx Entertainment founder for examples of her agency’s matching maker prowess.  The list (see below) is very impressive:

1. Claire Danes and Brooke Shields for Latisse
2. Food Network’s Ellie Krieger for Centecor in the area of arthritis
3. Gretchen Wilson for LapBand
4. Jennifer Lopez for childhood vaccines
5. Vanessa Williams and Virginia Madsen for Botox
6. Sally Field for Boniva
7. Jim Belushi, Bruce Jenner, Danica Patrick, and Patty Loveless for COPD
8. Keri Russell on a campaign for Sanofi-Aventis  on the Sounds of Pertussis vaccine campaign
9. Angelica Huston to help launch the well-known Merck Manual
10. Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Marg Helgenberger for a fundraiser sponsored by P&G  where all the proceeds went to breast cancer research
11. Robert DeNiro to help launch a nicotine patch. He was premiering one of his films in NY and a fundraiser for cancer research was tied to the event.
12. Dara Torres worked with Centecor, and The National Psoriasis Foundation on a public service campaign to raise awareness for psoriasis
13. Hector Elizondo on a campaign for CaringforAlz; campaign focused on the caregivers of Alzheimers patients (Hector’s mother suffered from the condition).  This was a national campaign supported by the Exelon brand team at Novartis.

According to the post, Rx Entertain manages the negotiation process between the celebs and pharmaceutical/biotechnology from beginning to end. There was no mention of the salaries paid to the celebrities for their participation in the DTC ads.  However the Rx Entertainment founder did offer several bits of cautionary advice:

The celebrity spokesperson ought to have a legitimate tie to the disease and that A-list celebrities may not always be the most appropriate spokespeople because of the baggage (scheduling issues, entourage and additional difficulties) they may bring to the campaign. 

That said who knew that B-list celebs had good shots at potential careers in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries? Talk about alternate career paths!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (ever consider acting????) !!!!!!!

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

Yesterday, I posted a piece on "hit'  throughput screening (see below).  At the time, I learned about  'hit" throughput screening, I mentioned that  I had never heard of "hit" throughput screening but I did know about high throughput screening.  As it turns out, there was a problem in translation and in fact, there is no such thing as hit throughput screening and it is actually high throughput screening.  Mea Culpa!  I apologize for the error and in the future I will be assiduous in my fact checking before I post (a lesson that the boneheads in the Obama administration learned the hard way in the recent Sherrod brouhaha)

The Growth of High Throughput Screening

No; this isn’t a typo! My colleagues at Meet the Boss sent me a press release today about efforts underway at Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline to redefine HTS to mean “hit” throughput screening rather than high throughput screening. As many of you may know, high throughput screening which began in the mid 1990s was supposed to revolutionize drug discovery and development—it did not! Nevertheless, after almost 15 years of refinement it appears that the technology may be paying off and can be used as an adjunctive tool to expedite and lower the cost of small molecule and protein-based drug discovery. While I don’t know much about this emerging technology, the press release presented below suggests that a meeting about HTS may be in the works. 

It is understood that huge amounts of money have been invested into drug discovery and the biggest problem faced by the industry is investing in drugs which may not make it onto the market. Europe has always been seen to trail behind the US when discussing drug discovery within the pharmaceutical industry, but with the biotechnology revolution they have begun to catch and becoming a driving force within the global industry.

The NGP EU committee has been celebrating the success of their pioneering roles in genome sequencing and the development of proteomic. Pfizer has recently announced to the NGP Drug Discovery committee that they plan to roll out a hit identification and screening file strategy. The process will offer a new flexible strategy for hit identification while sculpting a more reliable and efficient screening process. 

High throughput screening (HTS) has grown rapidly over the last ten years and Pfizer themselves noted the huge advances in both detection technology and laboratory automation. Pfizer believe that not only big Pharma but also smaller companies can implement HTS as well. By implementing HTS,  it can remove the indecision over which compunds will be profiles, many smaller companies agonize over the costs of conventional profiling sometimes only choosing between 10 and 20 compounds, this already removes other possibilities before true research can really begin. Pfizer among other members of the NGP EU Drug Discovery committee wish to discuss how they wish to implement large scale profiling at a lower cost, while maintaining the incredible biological, technological, and scientific advancements they are already demonstrating globally.

GSK have also joined Pfizer recently in encouraging the implementation of HTS. “We are now at a stage where we can exploit the benefits of cutting edge technology for increased quality, performance and capabilities. We also have the option to supply the same number of compounds, with the same level of quality at an affordable price”. 

Key to discussions will be representatives from AstraZeneca - Goran Wennberg, VP Discovery Information, Bayer Schering Pharma - Andreas Busch, Head of Global Drug Discovery & Member of the Board , Novartis - Olivier Grenet , Group Head of Genome Biology ,GlaxoSmithKline - Tino Rossi, VP of PreClinical Drug Discovery & Enabling Technologies and Pfizer - John Mathias, Head of High Through Put Screening all determined to firmly place Europe as the Drug Discovery capital.

The discovery and implementation of HTS not only offers an opportunity to smaller Pharma companies but also the consumer, if research and quality is increased and cost decreased this in turn will be passed onto the consumer.

Stay tuned for more details.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

Those of us a certain age have all heard of the so-called new math—which by all accounts wasn’t much different than old math—that was suppose to revolutionize the way math was taught at the primary and secondary education levels. While new math may not have not have much different or better than old math from an academic perspective, pharmaceutical companies will have to reckon with the new math associated with the pricing of brand name prescription drugs if they want to remain competitive in the future.

According to statistics offered in a recent New York Times article on Teva Pharmaceuticals, the world’s largest generic drug manufacturer, generics now account for 75 per cent of the prescriptions filled in the United States. This figure is up 47 percent from a decade ago. Further, a recent study from IMS, the research firm that tracks prescription drug use, generic drugs saved the American healthcare system $734 billion between 1999 and 2008. These numbers, coupled with a paltry 25 per cent market share, suggest that brand name pharmaceutical companies must rethink the low volume, large margin pricing strategy that has guided big pharma for the past 50 years. 

As one Teva executive candidly put it, “If you are used to the fat margins of big pharma, it is hard to compete in the rough and tumble of price-cutting generics.” 

The push for wider adoption and use of generic pharmaceuticals and biologics (as compared with brand name drugs) suggests that there will likely be more belt-tightening at big pharma companies in the not-so-distant future.

Until next time..

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

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

Eli Lilly and Co. announced last Thursday that it plans on cutting 200 sales and marketing support jobs in its U.S. biomedicine group. More than half of those cuts will take place in Indianapolis, the corporate headquarters of the company. The cuts are the latest wave of the drugmaker's previously announced plans to chop 5,500 jobs worldwide by the end of 2011. The layoffs will be the largest since Lilly eliminated 200 jobs from its research laboratories in March.

Big pharmaceutical companies have been laying off marketing and sales reps for the past three years or so in response to lack of newly approved drugs and anticipated revenue losses from blockbuster drugs that are nearing patent expiry. According to a recent survey conducted by SDI Health the number of pharmaceutical sales reps has shrunk to roughly 81,780 in last year’s third quarter from 101,818 in 2005: a nearly 20 per cent. Further a recent post on the Pharmalot blog revealed that “last year, the number of docs willing to see most reps fell nearly 20 percent, the number of prescribers refusing to see most reps increased by half and the number of management-planned sales calls that were nearly impossible to complete topped 8 million” according to ZS Associates, which monitored interactions involving 500,000 physicians nationwide.

Declining revenues from brand name prescription drugs combined with the changing attitudes of physicians to sales reps suggest that marketing and sales jobs in the pharmaceutical industry may become scare in the future. However, as the biotechnology continues to mature, the need for sales reps with backgrounds in molecular biology and protein-based drugs will continue to increase.

While most physicians are very familiar and comfortable with small molecule prescription drugs, their understanding and familiarity with biotechnology drugs is surprisingly deficient. This suggests that PhD-trained life scientists, who are outgoing and don’t have problems “selling”, may want to consider careers in biotechnology sales or marketing.

Until next time…

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

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

Reuters, the news service, published a list of prescription drugs that are predicted to likely to be the top sellers in 2014. For comparison purposes, the forecasts for the top sellers predicted for 2010 were also included.

A quick perusal of the list suggests that there will likely be a shift toward the use of injected biologics in 2014 as compared with orally bioavailable small molecule drugs.

This should come as no surprise since most major pharmaceutical companies have publicly announced that biologics and biotechnology drugs are the key to their future successes.

Until next time

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

IMS Health, a market intelligence company that tracks US drug prescriptions, reported that the US sale of prescription drugs grew 5.1% in 2009 to $300.3 billion.

IMS identified the following key trends among the major therapeutic areas:

• Antipsychotics remained the top-selling class of medications in the U.S., with 2009 prescription sales of $14.6 billion, equal to the 2008 level.
• Lipid regulators continued as the largest therapy class in the U.S. by dispensed prescription volume, growing at a 5 percent pace to 212 million prescriptions dispensed in 2009. Sales of lipid regulators declined 10 percent last year to $13.1 billion, reflecting an ongoing shift toward lower-cost generic alternatives. Lipid regulators ranked #3 in overall sales in 2009.
• Proton pump inhibitors replaced lipid regulators as the second-largest therapeutic class in sales last year. Proton pump inhibitors sales totaled $13.6 billion, a 2 percent decline year over year, while dispensed prescription volume for this therapeutic class rose 5 percent.
• Antidepressants became the fourth-largest class in 2009, up from its #5 ranking the prior year, with U.S. prescription sales growth of 3 percent to $9.9 billion.
• Sales of antineoplastic monoclonal antibodies, a leading oncology class that includes Avastin^®, Rituxan^® and Herceptin^®, grew at a 9 percent pace in 2009 and ranked #6 in therapeutic class sales.

IMS also reported that use of generic products, including branded generics, continued to rise last year and now represent 75 percent of all dispensed prescriptions in the U.S., up from 57 percent in 2004. The total number of generic prescriptions dispensed increased 5.9 percent in 2009, while the number of branded prescriptions dispensed declined 7.6 percent.

While the US pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries continue to cry poverty, it appears that sale of prescriptions drugs continues to grow at a pretty good rate. Look for increased growth until 2014 when healthcare reform begins to kick in.

Until next time…

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

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

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

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

Hat tip to Pharmalot

Until next time…

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

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

Until recently, there was little or no mention of business activity within the emerging Chinese life sciences industry. However, as the Chinese middle class continues to grow, the need and demand for pharmaceutical and biotechnology drugs (including vaccines and other biologics continues) to grow at a frenetic pace. Further, a growing abundance of US-trained scientists has allowed the Chinese life science industry to develop much more quickly than anticipated. Also, many major pharmaceutical companies like Merck, Roche and Novartis have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in China and have already established world class Chinese R&D facilities. Finally, unlike in most Western countries, the Chinese government controls roughly 80% of the pharmaceutical and biologics manufacturing that takes place in China. Together, this suggests that China has quietly established itself as a life sciences power to be reckoned with! To that end, there were two reports that came across the transom this morning that piqued my interest. 

The first report was about a company called Lotus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

"Lotus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a growing developer and producer of prescription drugs and licensed national seller of pharmaceutical products in the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), reported the groundbreaking ceremony on March 9 to construct a new building complex on the grounds of its production facility in Beijing.

Officials of Beijing municipal and Chaoyang district governments, officers of the China State Food & Drug, and representatives of both state-owned and private pharmaceutical companies attended the ceremony. CEO, Zhongyi Liu, welcomed the guests. "After a year of planning, we are pleased to start the construction of the new building complex and expect to finish the construction by July, interior decoration by September and GMP certification by December of this year," he said. "This is a new page for Lotus' development and it will provide important impetus to profitable growth, which is anticipated to reach $150 million in annual sales during the first year after the facility, is fully operational."

The second reported on plans to build a venture-back, “private” contract manufacturing facility that specializes in biomanufacturing in metropolitan Beijing.

"AutekBio, Inc., SUMA Ventures and Beijing E-Town Harvest International Capital Management Corporation, a venture capital group from Beijing Municipal Government announced a joint investment of more than US$100m to develop a new contract manufacturing organization (CMO) for biopharmaceutical industry in China. This joint effort led by AutekBio represents strong interests from both private investment sector and government to establish world quality capability and capacity in biopharmaceutical manufacturing in China.

The new joint venture will build up a world class R&D and manufacturing center in southern Beijing to service international biologic developments, with combined volumes of bioreactors up to 20,000 liters in multiple production lines (trains). The firm will also benefit from financial, regulatory and other supports from the Chinese government for the biotech industry." 

It is becoming increasingly apparent that China has clearly set its sights on establishing itself as player on the global life sciences stage. After spending a week in China during the country’s preparation for the Beijing Games, I discovered that China can achieve any goal that it sets for itself in very short order.  

Until next time...  

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

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

In case you did not know, the 12 years of market exclusivity proposed for follow-on biologics by supporters and lobbyists for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries is part of the impending US healthcare reform legislation currently pending in Congress. While President Obama has publicly announced that he supports a five year period of data exclusivity for biologics (the same as the exclusivity period for generic small molecule drugs, it is unlikely that the President will be able to convince or coerce legislators to reconsider the 12 year data exclusivity provision. However, there was a brilliant Op-Ed piece in today’s New York Times written by Anthony So and Samuel Katz at Duke University which offers a plethora of financial and business reasons why the five year period makes a lot of sense!

1. Generic small molecule drugs have been estimated to save the American healthcare system as much as $734 billion over the past 25 year or so since the inception of the Hatch Waxman Act.
2. Biologics cost on average 22 times more than equivalent brand name prescription small molecule drugs
3. In 2008, 28% of sales of the life science industry’s top 100 products came from biologics and biotechnology products: by 2014 that share is expect to rise to about 50%
4. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission found that the top six selling biologics which include Epogen (Amgen) Avastin (Genentech) and Remicade (Centocor) accounted for $7.0 billion (43%) of Part B drug spending in 2007 (Part B covers the cost of doctor spending and outpatient visits)
5. Between 2006 and 2007, Medicare Part D (prescription drug coverage) spending on biologics increased by 36% as compared with a 22% increase in spending for small molecule drugs
6. Prices for biologics and biotechnology products have increased more rapidly than those for small molecule drugs
7. While industry leaders and their lobbyist contend that it costs more and takes longer to develop biologics and biotechnology products than small molecule drugs, based on reports by various industry trade groups it costs about $1.2 billion to develop biologics and roughly $1.318 billion for small molecule drugs
8. The US Federal Trade Commission, the independent federal agency whose main goals are to protect consumers and to ensure a strong competitive market by enforcing a variety of consumer protection and antitrust laws, recommended that the data exclusivity period for follow-on biologics should not exceed six years.

Despite the likelihood that follow-on biologics will substantially reduce prescription drug costs and healthcare spending, Congress has chosen to support questionable legislation that will delay access of Americans to less costly, efficacious follow-on biologics until at least 2020.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat tip to the New York Times!

Until next time...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

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

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

Pfizer is one of three companies vying for the opportunity to . Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, the Swedish private equity fund EQT and Pfizer are the three finalists to purchase Ratiopharm GmbH which is valued at about €2.8-3 billion. The finalists will make their bids in early February. France’s Sanofi-Aventis SA Euronext and China’s Sinopharm Group Co. Ltd. withdrew from the tender in December

Ratiopharm is a private company owned by the Merckle family. Ludwig Merckle put the company up for sale last year, after his late father Adolf Merckle committed suicide in early 2009 after losing control over his business empire to lenders. If Teva acquires Ratiopharm, it will win a major foothold in the German healthcare market, considered a large and growing market. Teva, the world’s largest generic drug company, is currently not a big player in the German market.

 The rising development and retail costs of name brand prescription drugs and the future possibility of price controls in the US is forcing pharmaceutical companies to reconsider the value of generic drugs. Currently, generic prescriptions are rapidly outpacing those for branded products and the size of the US and international markets for both small and large molecule drugs (biosimilars) growing daily. Previously, most innovator companies didn’t think the profit margins nor returns on investment were sufficient to add generic molecules to their product portfolios. However, a few large pharmaceutical companies have already entered the generics fracas; most notably Sandoz (a division of Novartis) which manufactures both generic small molecule and biosimilar biotechnology products and more recently established Merck BioVentures which aims to compete in the follow-on biologics market. 

Many experts believe that it is only a mater of time before most big pharma companies like Pfizer realize that they have to be in both the branded and generic sides of the business. Don’t be surprised over the coming months if other pharma companies consider doing deals to acquire generic drug manufacturers. Diversification will be the mantra of the next decade or so!

Until next time...

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

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

The generic drug industry didn’t exist until the passage of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Hatch-Waxman Amendments). This piece of legislation, better known in the pharmaceutical industry as the Hatch-Waxman Act, was proposed and adopted by the US Congress because of the escalating costs of brand name drugs manufactured by large pharmaceutical companies (sound familiar?). The act provided the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with a regulatory pathway to approve and bring to market “generic” versions of branded drugs that lost patent protection. During the debate over the amendment, and for many years thereafter, branded pharmaceutical manufacturers tried to stifle the growth of the generic drug industry by suggesting that generic versions of their branded medications were unreliable and unsafe. This tactic was partly responsible for the stinted growth of the generic pharmaceutical industry until the mid 1990s when the price of branded pharmaceutical drugs began to skyrocket and insurance companies began to realize that something had to be done to manage rising drug reimbursement costs. To that end, insurers and third party payors began requiring patients to use generics (when available) instead of branded products to cap rising prescription drug costs. Because of this, the generic industry has grown by leaps and bound over the past decade and now threatens the stability of the branded pharmaceutical industry! 

Unfortunately, while increased generic drug use may be good for generic drug manufacturers and insurance companies, it isn’t always in the best interests of patients who use prescription medications. For example, there are a growing number of stories and complaints from patients who were forced to switch from a brand name drug to a generic one and had side effects, or found that their symptoms returned or may have been worse than before. In fact, this happened to my mother who was switched from a brand name pain reliever that worked to a generic version that no longer controlled her symptoms and induced some untoward side effects. Scientifically, there ought to be little difference in the efficacy, safety or tolerability profiles of a branded drug and its generic equivalent. This is because both medications contain the same active pharmaceutical ingredient. However, differences in the formulation of the branded and generic versions of the drugs may be responsible for reduced efficacy or safety and tolerability issues.

While clinical studies conducted by the insurance industry suggest there are no safety or tolerability differences between brand name and generic drugs and the American Medical Association’s assertion that, as a whole, generic drugs do work as well as branded drug, there is some evidence to suggest that some generic drugs may not be interchangeable or substitutable for certain branded medications. This appears to be the case for certain drugs that are used to treat neurological conditions and mental health diseases like seizures, depression and bipolar disease. Lesley Alderman, in an article she wrote in today’s New York Time business sections provides excellent examples of this.   

The problems with some generic drugs may arise as a result of the approval process for this class of drugs. According to provisions outlined in the Hatch Waxman Act which stipulate that a generic version must have the same active ingredient, strength and dosage form as the brand name drug or reference product. The generic version must also be demonstrated to be “bioequivalent” to the brand name drug. This means that the generic product must be shown to reach blood levels (drug concentration) that are very similar to the brand name product. This is usually determined by administering the generic and brand name drugs to a relatively small number (24 to 36) of healthy human volunteers. Generally speaking, once bioequivalence is established it paves the way for regulatory approval of the product. Typically, once approved, many generics receive what is known as an AB rating. Generics that are AB-rated can freely be substituted (by a licensed pharmacist) for a brand name product even though the physician may have written the prescription for the branded product.

In the past, patients were usually given a choice between a generic and a brand name drug —a decision that was largely based on the percentage of the cost of drug that would be covered by insurance. These days, patients no longer have a choice and are generally forced to use generic drugs rather than brand name products based on formulary lists compiled by insurance companies. While I am not practically or philosophically opposed to using generic drugs, there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that not all patients respond the same way to branded and for that matter generic drugs. Therefore, I contend that allowances ought to be made for these differences and patients who don’t respond to (or experience side effects) after taking generics shouldn't’t be denied access to the branded product that, in most cases, was originally prescribed by that patient’s physician. It is one thing to cut costs; it is another to increase a patients suffering or anxiety. If you are concerned about switching from a branded medication to a generic, please read this for some helpful tips and guidance.

Until next time...

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

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

The New York Times that W. Scott Harkonen, MD the former chief executive of InterMune, a Brisbane, CA biopharmaceutical company, was convicted yesterday for issuing what federal prosecutors called a misleading press release that contributed to off-label sales of the company’s drug Actimmune.

Actimmune is bioengineered form of interferon gamma approved in 2000 to treat children and adults with chronic granulomatous disease (CGD) and severe, malignant osteopetrosis—two relatively rare genetic diseases. But the main sales of the drug, which peaked at $141million in 2003, came from an unapproved use: treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a scarring of the lungs that can be fatal. While licensed physicians in the US can prescribe approved drugs for off label, it is illegal for drug makers to promote the use of prescription drugs to treat indications for which the drug didn’t receive approval.

According to the Times article, InterMune conducted a large clinical trial testing Actimmune as a treatment for the lung disease. The drug did not achieve the clinical endpoints of the trial, which was to improve lung function of patients receiving Actimmune as compared with patients receiving a placebo. However, a review of the statistical analyses of the trial revealed that if only the patients in the trial with mild or moderate disease were considered, those who got the drug lived longer than those who received the placebo .The company highlighted the “survival benefit” of patients treated with Actimmune in a news release, issued in August 2002.  Following the press release, sales of Actimmune (which costs about $50,000 per year) peak at $141 million in 2003—the drug was mainly being used to treat idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis an indication for which the drug hadn’t received regulatory approval. Because of this, federal prosecutors contended that the news release was part of a scheme to induce off-label sales of Actimmune. Interestingly, in 2007, a second large clinical trial of Actimmune found that the drug didn’t prolong the lives of patients with pulmonary fibrosis.

The InterMune case isn’t unique in the life sciences industry. Time and time again companies are charged with off-label promotional activities and typically these cases are settled before they go to trial. To that end, the InterMune case is an exception but Harkonen’s conviction sends a warn drug company executives that the US government takes off label promotion seriously and it will no longer be tolerated.

While it can be argued that off label drug use can benefit patients and ought to be allowed, off label promotion of previously approved drugs allows drug companies to benefit financially without investing in expensive clinical trials to win regulatory approval for the off label indication. In other words, off label promotion of prescription drugs can be a financial windfall for companies and induce them to place profits ahead of patient safety and drug efficacy. This is why promotion of off label use of prescription drugs is illegal and a prosecutable crime. 

It is important to remember that prescription drugs are required to undergo a rigorous regulatory review to insure that they are safe and efficacious. While the use of approved drugs to treat off label indications may benefit some patients, the drugs in question must be rigorously tested for safety and efficacy to treat the indication before they are used to in large numbers of patients. And, as we have seen in recent years, even drugs that have gone through clinical testing and garnered regulatory approval may not be as effective or safe when used to treat billions of patients!

Until next time...

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

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

I suspect that a majority of BioJobBlog readers have at one time or another been prescribed a drug to treat a particular medical condition or ailment. Like most of you, I assumed that my prescription information and history was private and that only healthcare professionals were privy to it. However, after reading an article in this Sunday’s NY Times, I learned how wrong I was! Much to my dismay,  I learned that prescription information including the name and dosage of a drug, the name and address of the physician who prescribed as well as a patient’s address and social security number is a commodity that is regularly bought and sold usually with a patients’ knowledge or permission. And apparently, this practice is perfectly legal as long as patient’s names are removed or encrypted before the information is sold, typically to drug manufacturers.

Unfortunately, privacy experts and information technology specialists contend that it isn’t difficult to match names, addresses, and social security numbers to reconstruct information that had supposedly been rendered anonymous. To make matters worse, until very recently, federal patient privacy and data security rules were loosely enforced and frequently abused by medical marketers, advertisers, drug manufacturers and retail pharmacies. Finally, re-identifying a patient’s prescription drug information and history provides drug makers with a powerful tool to target and market drugs to specific patient populations.

Tracking prescriptions and mining prescription data is not new—it has been big business for many decades. The major players in the drug mining business are companies like IMS Health, Verispan and CVS Caremark. Also, large discount pharmacy retailers like Walgreens and Target engage in this practice and they all sell their prescription information data to interested parties. Prescription drug data-mining companies say that their services are valuable and warranted because gathering and analyzing information from tens of thousands of patients helps drug manufacturers to identify trends and potential safety and tolerability issues with prescription drugs. Nevertheless, despite assertions that prescription drug data are anonymous when it is sold, class action and private lawsuits alleging this not to be the case have been filed against some of the major players including Walgreens, IMS Health and CVS Caremark. While this is troubling, loopholes in the current prescription drug data mining regulations allow pharmacy companies like Walgreens and others to accept money from drug manufacturers to mail advice and reminders to customers to take their medications without first obtaining their permission. The loopholes also allow drug makers to send customers’ promotional information and materials about drugs other than the ones that they are already taking.

Under the Obama Administration’s $19 billion healthcare stimulus package, selling prescription drug data to drug makers will still be allowed (only if patient’s names are removed). Also, subsidized marketing by drug makers will be allowed to continue but companies will no longer be able to promote drugs other than those the customer already buys. While the new legislation allows data mining and the sale of prescription drug information to continue, its primary goal is to tighten and insure patient privacy so that personal prescription drug history and information can no longer be used to exploit the buying habits and behaviors of individual American consumers.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

I was in the gym the other day, trying to regain my “girlish figure,” and I happened to see Brooke Shields in television ad hawking Latisse, the new eye lash-enhancing prescription medication from Allegan. For those women (or men for that matter) who haven’t heard, Latisse was recently approved for hypotrichosis of the eye lashes. Hypotrichosis is medically-defined as a reduced amount of hair, and in this case, it refers to eyelashes. Who knew that reduced eyelash hair was a burgeoning unmet medical need? Anyway, back to Brooke.

I like Brooke Shield and I think that her very personal and public account of her struggles with postpartum depression after the birth of her first child was courageous and laudable. And, I thought she was pretty damn good in Pretty Baby and the Blue Lagoon too. But, I question her decision to use her celebrity among women to promote a prescription drug that was approved almost exclusively for cosmetic use. Yes, I know that women’s cosmetics are a multibillion industry and woman worldwide work hard to get longer and fuller lashes. But, this begs the question: Are the possible health risks associated with Latisse—an attenuated form of botulism toxin used in Allergan’s anti-wrinkle treatment Botox—worth it, simply to get longer and fuller lashes; a look that can be achieved by daily application of non prescription and much cheaper mascara? Again, as is the case with most women’s healthcare choices, the decision should be left up to individuals.

Personally, I hope that Brooke’s eyebrows—which were quite formidable back in the day—remain as manageable as they appear to be today after using Latisse to thicken her eyelashes. Not that there is anything wrong with thick eyebrows!

Until next time...

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

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

We in America have grown accustomed to the constant barrage of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs provided to us daily by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. That said, some of you may be surprised to learn that DTC advertising of prescription drugs is only permitted in two countries in the world: New Zealand and the US.

According to William Burns, an executive at Roche Pharmaceuticals, “Direct-to-consumer promotion was the single worst decision for the industry." He added, "When industry says we're spending all the money on R&D but actually it's spending it on TV advertising to preserve margins, it doesn't get much credibility." It may not provide much credibility to the industry but is sure does help sales.  reported that a total of $4.2 billion was spent on DTC drug ads in the U.S. in 2005, up 330 percent from 1996.

Apparently Mr. Burns is not alone in his opinion. Angus Russell, chief executive of Britain's Shire Pharmaceuticals also condemned DTC.  As many of you know, I ‘m not a big fan of DTC nor am I flag-waving American but I find it rather curious that after almost 12 years of DTC advertising that European pharma executives are suddenly speaking out against the practice. Could this be little more than a ploy to get the European Commission to re-examine and possibly loosen it restrictions on the way prescription drugs are promoted in the EU? Quite coincidentally, the European Commission is in the process of drawing up legislation that would allow a degree of information to be disseminated about medicines by their makers, although advertising pharmaceuticals would remain banned. The legislation was initially expected to be unveiled by the European Union's executive arm last week but has been delayed.

Drug makers have long campaigned against rules that prevent them from talking directly to consumers in Europe, despite a wealth of often unreliable information being available on the Internet. I think this statement by Mr. Burns sums up the situation "You've got the two extremes on the planet, where we (drug makers) are given access to the public in America, which is too much, and in Europe we're not given access to information" (sounds like sour grapes to me).

Maybe a compromise between the two extremes would be a solution acceptable to both American and European regulators? 

Until next time…

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

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

Just when you thought the obvious couldn’t be anymore obvious to US lawmakers, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) today released a long-awaited assessment of the cost of a biogenerics bill and found that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce total expenditures on biologics in the US by $25 billion over the next decade—duh!!!  

According to a post over at Pharmalot, “The report comes as a growing group of drugmakers, insurers and employers agitate over the high cost of biologics, which may only be rectified if Congress passes legislation that would give the FDA guidance on creating a so-called pathway to approve biogenerics, or follow-on biologics. Two House bills have been proposed that are similar to the Senate bill reviewed by the CBO, although the looming summer recess and election-year politics suggest passage may not occur this year.”

Unfortunately, as I suggested in a previous post, the bills currently under consideration are flawed and would give unwarranted patent exclusivity to innovator companies if enacted. Nevertheless, as Kathleen Jaeger, head of the GPHA (a generic manufacturing trade group) aptly stated “We are still reviewing the analysis, but we are pleased that CBO agrees that significant savings will be achieved by bringing biogeneric medicines to consumers and that even greater savings will result from removing harmful barriers to access, including brand evergreening and unprecedented market exclusivity provisions. With Americans growing increasingly concerned about health care costs, we should be increasing access to affordable medicines while fostering competition in the pharmaceutical marketplace. “

By the time that a US approval pathway for biogenerics is divined, European and Asian biogeneric manufacturers will already control the market and the “new” (what took you so long) American legislation will provide little financial incentive for US companies to enter the biogenerics market space.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

Unlike many other countries with national healthcare systems, US healthcare and prescription drug costs are primarily shouldered by employers. As healthcare costs continue to rise, many American employers are calling for the US government to assume more of the costs through nationalized healthcare. The opposite situation is unfolding in the rest of the world, where overburdened nationalized healthcare systems are forcing employers to pay for workers supplemental health care costs.

A recent survey conducted by Watson Wyatt found that in countries like India, China and Russia healthcare is the number 1 benefit desired by a majority of workers. Globally, companies are projecting large year-to-year increases in medical and healthcare costs. In many places, medical and healthcare costs are rising faster than inflation.

Contrary, to popular belief, it appears that the US is not the only country struggling with skyrocketing healthcare and prescription drug costs. The graph below shows the expected increases in national healthcare costs from 2007 to 2008 (source Watson Wyatt).

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

Health care spending in the United States grew 6.7 percent in 2006 to $2.1 trillion, or $7,026 per person. This represents a slight increase over the 6.5 percent rate in 2005 (which was the slowest growth since 1999). Health spending accounted for 16 percent of US gross domestic product in 2006, outpacing overall nominal GDP growth by 0.6 percent. However, total health care spending in the US is not the real story here.

The federal government reported that the new Medicare drug benefit called Part D, which was implemented in early 2006, contributed to an 18.7 percent increase in Medicare spending that year, the fastest rate of growth since 1981 and double the rise in 2005.  In 2006, Medicare spending rose to $401.3 billion, up from $338.0 billion a year earlier, according to the government’s annual health spending report.

The impact on funding sources that paid for prescription drug benefits varied. The public share of spending (federal and state)  increased from 28 percent in 2005 to 34 percent in 2006, while funding from private sources (insurers) fell from 72 percent to 66 percent.  The shift in funding was most dramatic for Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare’s share of total retail prescription drug spending surged from just 2 percent in 2005 to 18 percent in 2006, following Part D implementation. Meanwhile, Medicaid’s share fell from 19 percent to 9 percent.

At present, the US government cannot negotiate prescription drug pricing with drug companies that produce the medications–only drug distributors and third party insurers can do that! As the baby boomer retirement continues, the amount of government spending on prescriptions drugs will increase exponentially and ultimately cause healthcare costs in this country to explode. In my opinion there are two options: impose price controls on prescription drugs or provide all US citizens with a national healthcare system that allows the government to negotiate drug pricing directly with drug manufacturers. And for those of you who think national healthcare is a fantasy–over 60% of all healthcare claims in the US are currently handled and paid by Medicare–a federally finaced and run government healthcare system!  We are closer to a national health insurance program than you think!

Until next time...

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

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