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 came across a recent post on Adage.com entitled “Pharma Drops Search Advertising After FDA Warning” that revealed that paid search ads by pharmaceutical companies dropped a 84% between March 26 of this year and the end of June. As you may recall, March 26 was when 14 companies received warning letters from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicating that they had violated marketing guidelines for search ad advertising. The letters stated that sponsored-link advertisements for specific drugs were misleading due to the exclusion of risk information associated with the use of the drug -- even though the regulatory agency's guidelines are for print and broadcast, not online or social media. Pharma companies that believed they were in compliance with the unwritten "one-click rule"— taking the consumer from the ad to a site that offered fair balance and the risk information by clicking on the ad. What? Did I read that correctly; the words “unwritten and FDA” in the same sentence? This is very surprising since anybody who has worked with the agency is well aware of the “if it isn’t written it didn’t happen” principle. But I digress....

The post went on to say that pharmaceutical companies are “fearful of running afoul” of the agency again. Say what? The words “pharma and fearful” used in the same sentence? The point that I am trying to make is that pharma chose to keep things vague about web-based advertising to see how far they can push the envelope with FDA instead of taking the proverbial “bull by the horns” and directly asking FDA for guidance on web 2.0 technologies and their uses. Wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest if companies took a more active role to help craft new rules on the use of new media technologies rather then rely on and wait for FDA to do it for them? While the old “cat and mouse” game worked for old media, it is no longer tenable when it comes to Web 2.0 and related technologies.

The FDA is holding public hearings next month to begin the process of establishing internet advertising guidelines and the use of social media in the life science industry. This offers drug and devices companies an opportunity to show FDA that they no longer want to be part of the problem but part of the solution.  I have always subscribed to the notion that “you don’t get if you don’t ask!”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Surfing (on the Internet that is)

blog comments powered by Disqus

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

There was another article in today’s New York Times lamenting the marketing practices utilized by drug companies to inform physicians about their products. While these practices may be troubling to legislators and the American public, everybody who works in the life sciences industry including regulatory agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) understands the “rules of the game” and how it is played. However,

over the past three years, there has been a full frontal assault on direct-to-consumer advertising and marketing and sales practices used by drug makers to hawk their products to physicians and the American public. This has largely been an over reaction to the lack of regulatory oversight of drug manufacturers during the Bush administration. The new regulations have severely limited what sales representatives can offer physicians e.g. gifts and free lunches and dinners, for more face time to sell their products. Consequently, the only means left available to drug makers to reach large numbers of physicians is marketing through medical education.

This is how it works. Companies annually budget monies to pay highly recognized physicians aka key opinion leaders (KOLs) to give lectures to physicians that might influence their prescribing habits. These lectures often take the form of informational seminars that focus on treatment options for certain therapeutic indications which often times subliminally highlight the advantages of the sponsor’s product over its competitors. Not surprisingly, the effectiveness and success of these programs is usually directly proportional to the sums of money invested in them. For example, in 2004, Forrest Laboratories (the subject of the NY Times article) planned on spending “$34.7 million to pay 2000 physicians to deliver 15,000 marketing lectures about Lexapro (an antidepressant) to their peers in one year.” The investment appears to have paid off; sales Lexapro reached $2.3 billion in 2008 even though a lower cost generic version of the drug is available. And, while the Forrest investment in medical education may appear to be a large one, it pales in comparison to the sums invested in medical education programs by much larger companies like Pfizer, Merck and others.

While certain members of Congress may be “shocked and outraged,” these practices are sanctioned by FDA. And, as long as drug makers are compliant and adhere to the rules they shouldn’t be faulted or penalized for their efforts. The point that I am trying to make is that drug makers, like all other for-profit entities, must maximize sales to generate sufficient profits remain in business. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to legislators or the American public for that matter, that drug makers use all legally available means to maximize the sale of their products. If Congress doesn’t like what drug makers are doing, then they ought to stop complaining and legislate changes to the rules. Put simply, it’s time for Congress to “put up or shut up.”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

Until today, direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC) has received very little attention during the recent spate of debates over healthcare reform. The NY Times reports that several members of Congress are introducing legislation that would curb the reach of DTC advertising. While reasons for introduction of new legislation vary—ranging from moral indignation over the mention of four hour erections during prime time to tax deductions for pharma companies that engage in DTC advertising—it appears that no stone will be unturned during the ongoing debate over US healthcare reform.

For those of you who may not know, DTC advertising is allowed in only two countries—New Zealand and the US. According to a Nielson Media Research report, in 2008 drug makers spent about $4.8 billion on DTC advertising for television, radio and print ads in magazines and newspapers. Not surprisingly, supporters of DTC point out that the amount of money spent by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies on DTC advertising is negligible as percentage of total health care spending. Nevertheless, data convincingly show that DTC advertising can increase the number of prescriptions written for newly approved drugs. Of the $235 billion spent on prescription drugs last year, approximately $8 billion was attributed to DTC advertising.

Although some academic studies suggest that DTC advertising can help people who need to start taking drugs and others to remain compliant with existing treatment regimens, the lack of fair balance in many DTC ads that promote drug benefits and downplay risks is what is driving legislation to curb its use. The recent brouhahas over Pfizer’s Lipitor commercials, Bayer Pharmaceuticals’ ad that deceptively promoted its popular birth control drug Yaz and Merck and Schering Plough’s Vytorin ads that overstated the health benefits of the cholesterol lowering drug have convinced legislators that DTC must be fixed.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Division of Drug Advertising Marketing and Communications (DDMAC) oversees and has full responsibility for DTC advertising. However, it is important to note, that under current regulations, companies aren’t required to get approval from the agency before they appear. Sharing DTC ads with FDA is completely voluntary. However, if FDA receives enough complaints about particular ads, DDMAC will review them and notify the company if regulators believe that they contain information that is misleading, unbalanced or unsubstantiated. Companies that violate DDMAC policies and guidelines are typically required to show run all future DTC ads by FDA regulators before they can shown to the public.

Because of the small numbers of patients that are typically used during clinical evaluation of new drugs, it may take as long as five years before side effects and problems with certain drugs begin to emerge. With this in mind, DTC critics argue that there ought to be a five year waiting period or moratorium on DTC advertising after a drug is approved. Interestingly, about ten years ago, a friend who works for a major pharmaceutical company told me that she always waits five years before using a newly approved drug.  At the time, I thought it was an odd thing for her to say since she had been in the business for over 15 years. However over the past five years or so, several high profile drugs that were heavily promoted by DTC advertising had to be withdrawn from the market. To that end, while DTC advertising may be “great for business,” it may not always be in the best interest of American consumers who use prescription drugs!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

Mark Sendak, a social media enthusiast and author of the Eye on FDA blog, wrote a great post today about an article he saw in the Washington Post entitled “Drug Firms Jockey for Space Online.”

Mark wrote: “Flock?  Flock?  FLOCK?  The only way you could use the term "flock" in connection with pharmaceutical firms and social media is to say that companies are a scared flock of geese.” He goes on to castigate FDA’s Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications (DDMAC) for a lack of a coherent regulatory framework and guidance for the use of social media in the life sciences industry.

Mark aptly describes DDMAC’s guidance surrounding social media and the pharmaceutical industry this way. “No one knows, and DDMAC apparently makes this stuff up as they go along. That is the kind of Whack-a-Mole game DDMAC plays.  We won't tell you what is off limits, until you do it and then WHACK! Is this anyway to run a pharmaceutical industry?

I am in total agreement with Mark on this issue. Despite the rapid adoption of social media by other industries, FDA has consistently been reluctant to issue any regulatory guidance what so ever on the topic despite assertions to the contrary. Unfortunately, when it comes to social media and the pharmaceutical industry, FDA’s usual approach to regulatory guidance—reactive rather than proactive—is still alive and well. As you may recall FDA previously sent warning letters to no fewer than 14 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies admonishing them on their placement of product ads on search engine results pages. The fact that 14 different companies received warning letters on this issue reflects the confusion and lack of guidance offered by FDA on social media and the use of Web 2.0 technologies to promote or support the sale pharmaceutical products.

The growing popularity and inevitability of social media suggests that DDMAC officials along with industry representatives must begin to consider crafting a preliminary regulatory framework for its use in the life sciences industry. Like it or not, social media is here to stay!

Hat tip to EyeonFDA!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

The Bush administration spent the last eight years trying to weaken and dismantle the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  I thought the carnage at the agency would end in the waning days of one of America’s worst leaders. Sadly, I was mistaken.

As many of you may know, FDA regulations forbid drug companies from promoting off label use of previously approved drugs. Not surprisingly, drug companies were able to find loop holes in the regulations and off-label drug promotion reached unprecedented levels in the early 2000s. In response, the agency embarked on an aggressive, unrelenting campaign to combat off label drug promotion by drug manufacturers. This effectively changed the way in which pharmaceutical sales representatives interacted with physicians in the past few years. No longer would there be unsolicited gifts, lavish pizza lunches for office personnel or tickets to local sporting events. Neither the drug makers nor physicians were happy about the rule changes but the revised guidelines helped to lessen off label promotion of previously approved drugs. That said, it came as something of shock late last year, when FDA officials proposed a new set of guidelines that would ease the restrictions on off label drug promotion.

The new rules would allow drug makers to supply physicians with copies of published research reports describing off label uses of drugs that were previously approved for other therapeutic indication. As you might have guessed, the drug companies are ecstatic with the new guidelines. Who needs pens, mugs or pizza when you can simply hand a physician a reprint of article that show that off label use of an approved drug can treat potentially life threatening medical conditions.  What an ingenious way to boost sales of extant drugs for new indications without having to spend larges of money trying to win regulatory approval for them. While this would be a financial boon to the pharmaceutical industry, I don’t think it would be in the best interest of patients who may be prescribed a drug that hasn’t undergone the rigorous scrutiny of controlled, human clinical trials.

Many congressional democrats and drug industry critics opposed the guidelines when they were first proposed last year. But, like many other times over the past eight years, the Bush administration prevailed. Today, the agency announced (with little fanfare) that the new off label drug use guidelines would go into effect—one week before Barack Obama is inaugurated as President. 

Until next time…

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

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

The newest culprit in the direct-to-consumer (DTC) television ad cat and mouse game between pharmaceutical manufacturers and US regulators is Cordis, a medical device subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. The ad in question deals with promotion of the use of a cardiac stent called Cypher that is manufactured by the company. The television ad is the first ever to market a medical device. Nevertheless, according to an article published in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine, the ad overstates the benefits of the stent without mentioning possible adverse effects that can include heart attack and stroke.

The current brouhaha is nothing new in the ongoing battle between drug manufacturer (and now, medical device companies) and regulators over DTC advertising. As some of you may know, the US is one of a few industrialized countries in the world that allows DTC advertising.  Further, DTC ads don’t require FDA review or approval before they are aired or printed–although in some instances, companies do request FDA review. 

Because of growing problems with DTC ads (especially television spots), there is mounting pressure on FDA to limit consumer medical advertising or, at the very least, increase regulatory oversight of it. To that end, on Friday, an FDA advisory panel will convene to discuss whether television ads for prescription medications ought to include a statement encouraging consumers to report any adverse side effects via a toll free number to the agency. At present, this type of disclaimer is only required for DTC print ads.

For those of you who don’t know, FDA has (by law) a post marketing surveillance network in place to allow consumers to report any side effects (big or small) that they may experience after taking prescription or over the counter medications. Further, companies are required by FDA regulations to immediately report any and all side effects associated with their products.

Of interest, in a hearing last week on drug advertising (being conducted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee), several drug company representatives in attendance were asked whether or not they would support a toll free number on television ads to encourage viewers to report adverse side effects. Surprisingly (perhaps not) they could or would not directly answer the question. According to John D. Dingell, chair of the committee and advocate of greater regulatory oversight of DTC advertising, “Some ads appear to be misleading and others appear to be downright deceptive.” Imagine that!

What is particularly disturbing about the DTC controversy is that government officials and legislators are frequently incredulous when they learn about DTC advertising abuses. As I have stated time and time again, there are larges sums of money at stake here. This coupled, with little or no regulation, and mounting pressures to keep company stock price shares high, is a sure recipe for disaster (as we have begun to witness over the past 5 years or more). In my opinion, there is only a single solution to the problem–craft more stringent regulations and greater FDA oversight for DTC advertising. Asking drug and medical devices companies to regulate themselves in any area is tantamount to allowing a fox to live in a hen house—the pickings are easy and only the fox gets fat!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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