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

Many people, most notably GlaxoSmithKline employees, assumed that GSK management would disclose at its earning call yesterday how many people would lose their jobs in the company’s next round of job cuts announced earlier this week. Surprisingly, management decided not to announce the breadth and depth of layoffs ostensibly increasing the drama and anxiety of its employees about the cuts.

Management’s decision not to disclose the number of employees who would lose their jobs after publicly announced that it would cut up to 4,000 jobs means one of two things according to Jim Edwards of the BNET blog.

“Either that GSK itself has not finished calculating it; or that management believes there’s some sort of PR advantage to not actually saying out loud what everyone already knows.”  

Based on public statements made by GSK spokespeople, Edwards has identified several vulnerable areas where jobs are likely to be cut. These include R&D across the board and one therapeutic area, neuroscience. According to bloggers and insiders who leaked information to the public, the asthma drug Advair may be at risk, as well as metabolic disease product development and sales representatives. Also, there will be reporting structure changes and less emphasis will be place on new product launches in the US. The recent decision to not seek US regulatory approval for GSK’s new, pneumococcal vaccine Synflorix, despite garnering EU approval tends to substantiate this idea.

Elimination of neuroscience as a therapeutic area of interest for GSK was clearly enunciated when the company mentioned during the earnings call

 “Today, we have announced proposals to cease discovery research in selected neuroscience areas, including depression and pain.”

Today, GSK announced that it would close a research center in Verona Italy that specializes in neuroscience research. Approximately 500 workers will lose their jobs after the facility is closed. Unions representing the Italian workers also disclosed in an e-mail message that six facilities worldwide besides Verona will also be closed by GSK.

Less obvious, but clearly written between the lines was the statement made about R&D.

"We have ‘externalised’ approximately 30% of GSK’s discovery research. We are already conducting discovery research with 47 external partners. Our goal is to further increase the level of externally sourced compounds in our pipeline …"

"… We are also looking to reduce R&D infrastructure costs."

Perhaps what may be most troubling to GSK employees who ultimately lose their jobs is the $900 million or more spent on legal fees over the past year. GSK didn’t disclose why the company had incurred such enormous legal bills.

The recent spate of layouts doesn’t mean that any big pharma companies are in financial trouble. As previously mentioned, most of the layoffs are based on future economic predictions and projections which may or may not be realized. Companies are cutting staff and implementing cost savings measures simply to bolster their stock prices and give investors their expected ROI. The economic downturn has provided pharma companies with excellent cover to downsize at will without anybody asking any tough questions. While I feel the pain of workers who have either lost or soon will lose their jobs, the downsizing taking place over the past three years has been a long time in the making. I suspect that many well paid veteran employees turned a blind eye to the internal changes and cues that may have signaled their ultimate demise. 

While downsizing will likely have its anticipated short term effects i.e. bolster flagging stock share prices, it will ultimately hurt the future economic prospects of most big pharma companies. This is because pharma companies will lose many of the talented and experienced workers whose previous hard work and sacrifices contributed to their past successes.  When are the overpaid pharma executives going to realize that it is the rank and file, not them that bring creativity, innovation and ultimately financial rewards to their stakeholders?

Until next time...

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

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

In a previous blog post, I raised the possibility that the life sciences industry may be using adverse event (AE) reporting to explain why it has been slow to adopt social media as a means of communicating and interacting with its customers and stakeholders. The industry argument against social media goes something like this: by engaging physicians, consumers and other stakeholders in social media conversations, there will be a massive and unmanageable explosion of AEs posted to social networking sites, company websites and health and science blogs. Because of this, companies will be obliged to report them to FDA. Company executives’ fear that this will be inordinately expensive, egregiously time-consuming, technologically-daunting and most importantly, expose companies to possible legal and regulatory actions. While some of these claims may have some validity, they are not as expensive, technologically-challenging or insurmountable as anti-social media advocate would have you believe. For example, while conducting an interview for Life Science Leader magazine for an article on social media and pharma, several pharma employees exploring the social media space confided that most companies already have assiduously-crafted AE reporting policies in place to easily manage and accommodate AE reporting from  websites, cell phones and even text messages! For those of you who may be wondering, before potential AEs are required to be reported to FDA it must meet the following criteria: (i) there is an identifiable patient; (ii) there is an identifiable reporter or observer; (iii) there is a specific drug or biologic involved in the event; and (iv) there is an adverse event or fatal outcome.

Jonathan Richman (social media guru and pharmaceutical marketing expert) and I have previously weighed in on the so-called “adverse event reporting myth” that has been circulating in life sciences social media circles. In fact, I posited in my previous post that adverse event reporting may actually be something of a “red herring” being used by the industry. For those of you who may not be familiar with the term, it means focusing on an obvious and easily identifiable issue or object to draw attention away from a more important central issue.  To that end, I was pleased to read a post today on Jonathan’s Dose of Digital Blog entitled 166 Reportable Adverse Events Equals One Red Herring.

In today’s post, Jonathan does some basic mathematical calculations and arrives at the conclusion (based on the occurrence and frequency of Internet-based adverse events disclosed in a recent Nielsen survey) that the likely number of adverse events posted on social media sites per day would be around 166 (for the entire industry). Doing some of my own high-level mathematical calculations; this translates into a likely total annual number of about 60,590 AEs. And, as Jonathan rightly points out, if this number is divided by the number of life sciences companies with approved drugs and devices on the market, you quickly realize that shouldn’t be that onerous, labor intensive or expensive for companies to manage AE reporting resulting from social media sources. It would be interesting and informative to compare this annual rate with the actual number of reportable annual adverse events being handled by life sciences companies today. 

Like Jonathan, I believe that the “adverse event reporting issue” is a classic example of a “red herring” being employed by the life sciences industry to explain its reluctance to jump on the social media bandwagon. Personally, what I believe is really at stake, is the systemic changes that would be required to transform a historically, opaque and unresponsive industry into a transparent, accountable and responsive one that would be required if it embraces social media as an integral part of its business model.  

Addendum:  Shortly after posting this article, a new post appeared on the Dose of Digital blog that provided an indepth analysis of the Nielsen survey and its implications.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

Pharmaceutical,biotechnology and other companies that sell prescription drugs and devices are deathly afraid of adverse events (AEs) associated with their products. For those of you who may not know, companies with approved prescription drugs and medical devices are required to track and report any adverse events associated with their products to regulatory agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). If FDA receives enough AE complaints about a product, the agency will investigate to determine whether or not there may be efficacy, safety or tolerability issues with it. And, if FDA thinks that the AEs are legitimate, it may ask a company to conduct Phase IV clinical trials with the product in question or require that changes be made to the product’s label. Not surprisingly, these outcomes can be time consuming and perhaps more importantly, costly. Label changes—especially for blockbuster products—frequently lead to changes in physician prescribing habits which can translate into a loss of revenue. Despite the fact that ALL drugs exhibit AEs, many companies falsely cling to the hope that there will be few, if any, AEs reported for their products.

While drug makers are very familiar with the range of possible AEs associated with their drugs—all AEs for a drug are identified and reported during clinical trials—pharmaceutical executives are concerned about social media activities, because they fear that than the number and frequency of AEs reported for their products will increase. This, in turn, would prompt FDA and other regulatory agencies to investigate and more closely scrutinize their marketed products. As Jonathan Richman, author of the Dose of Digital Blog points out in an excellent post entitled the “Myth of Adverse Event Reporting” AEs are a fact of life for prescription drugs. And, that social media may help to improve adverse reporting. Like Jonathan, I contend that social media might allow drug makers to more effectively identify potential safety issues with a product earlier in its lifecycle and thereby minimize possible deleterious effects of the drug on certain patient populations. I think that drug manufacturers ought to begin to consider how they might effectively use social media to improve AE reporting rather than ignore the potential upside of this new medium.

The Myth of Adverse Event Reporting

Adverse Events are nothing more than negative reviews. If you want people to genuinely talk about your brand, they are going to say negative things. But how often do posts include adverse events? Nielsen decided to take a look at this rather than simply assume it was ” a lot,” which of course is a difficult number to manage. Nielsen looked at Yahoo Health boards and took 500 postings. Of these, only 1 contained enough information to qualify as an adverse event that needed to be reported. That’s 0.2%. Why so low? Turns out that someone simply saying that your drug caused them to have a headache isn’t enough to qualify as an adverse event. Nielsen summed up the pieces of information required to report an adverse event and there are four pieces: “(i) an identifiable patient; (ii) an identifiable reporter; (iii) a specific drug or biologic involved in the event; and (iv) an adverse event or fatal outcome.” (Hat tip to Pharma 2.0 for the summary). The study showed that one or two of these pieces were often available, but not all four. In addition, they found that it would be impossible to get all four even with some effort. In fact, the FDA says, “[Without these pieces] a report on the incident should not be submitted to the FDA because reports without such information make interpretation of their significance difficult, at best, and impossible, in most instances.”

This is because people often don’t register or leave their personal information in a post, so there is no way for a company to follow up and fill in the blanks. Naturally, if there is something significant, every effort should be made, but on the often anonymous Internet, this is usually difficult. Suppose for a moment there were several adverse events that need to be reported. How often do they need to be reported? The FDA is pretty clear on this. For new drugs, reports need to be filed quarterly for three years. After that, it’s annually. For “serious and unexpected” events, these have to be reported within 15 days. However, there’s a pretty high threshold for an adverse event to be considered “serious and unexpected.” Every company already has these reporting channels in place, so it is simply a matter of including adverse events received from social media into the workstream. 

Yes, it’s a balance. The fact is adverse events should not be the reason why healthcare shies away from social media. These risks can easily be mitigated and, if done right, can actually be used in a positive way. So, don’t use adverse events as an excuse anymore. You’ve got the data. 1 in 500 posts include a reportable event. You report quarterly at most (which you’re doing anyway). How much ongoing effort do your other marketing programs require? Probably quite a bit more than this. Next time you hear this excuse, you’ve got the data to dispel the myth of adverse event reporting.

Until next time...

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

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

Mark Senak, author of the EyeonFDA blog and social media enthusiast, posted a great piece about pharma’s reluctance to adopt social media and the changes in adverse event reporting-- aka pharmacovigilance--requirements that may change this attitude. 

Hat tip to Mark!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

The debate, if you can call it that, over whether or not interactive social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter can be used in the life science industry is moving forward at glacial speed. I decided that it was time to propose some ideas rather than continue to admonish the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a lack of guidance.

There are several reasons which may explain the inertia surrounding the adoption of social media by pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices and diagnostics companies. First, and perhaps foremost, FDA has been consistently reluctant to craft any useful guidance on the use of Web 2.0 technologies for research, clinical or promotional purposes. The FDA’s Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications (DDMAC) is still trying to figure out how to regulate website content. Is it any wonder that FDA is reluctant to tackle the regulatory implications and issues associated with social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter? Second, a majority of social media advocates— who are leading the charge at many life sciences companies—are marketing and advertising executives who tend to look at social media strictly as a promotional tool. Finally, much of what takes place at life sciences companies is proprietary and confidential—information flow between the company and its employees and the public is fastidiously monitored and tightly regulated. Because of this, the life sciences industry’s “process” is intentionally opaque—which is contrary to the goals of social media which is to promote transparency (or the illusion of it).

There is no doubt that the life sciences industry is the most highly regulated industry on the planet. While this represents a formidable challenge for adoption of social media, it is by no means insurmountable—especially if social media is used for purposes other than branding, marketing and advertising. For example, the most straight forward application of social media at life sciences companies would be in the areas of corporate recruitment and employee retention. Many Fortune 500 companies outside of the life sciences industry have been using Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn for years for recruiting purposes. While not commonly acknowledged, life sciences companies have quietly begun to use Facebook, LinkedIn and MySpace to recruit prospective employees. Interestingly, the new kid on the block—Twitter—looks to potentially be a more powerful recruiting tool than any of its predecessors. Unfortunately, employee retention is no longer a priority at many companies. However, before the economic meltdown a number of companies, most notably Best Buy, were experimenting with social media to retain talented employees.

Another potential use of social media is for pharmacovigilance and adverse events reporting. Companies with approved products on the market are required by FDA (and other regulatory agencies that approved their products) to set up post marketing surveillance programs for adverse events reporting. By law, companies that receive adverse events reports from consumers, physicians or other entities must report them to the regulatory agencies that approved the product. Regulatory agencies maintain adverse events databases for all approved drugs and devices to monitor drug safety.  If designed and implemented correctly, interactive social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter (which operates in real-time) would make excellent pharmacovigilance and adverse reporting tools. Quite coincidentally, John Mack, who runs the Pharma Marketing Blog, reported a partnership between UCB and PatientsLikeMe.com to create a pharmacovigilance reporting platform for UCB products.

Recruiting patients for participation in clinical trials (to assess efficacy and safety of prospective new drugs) has become extremely challenging over the past few years.Traditional patient recruitment strategies include print, television and radio ads and in some instances, websites. All of these recruitment methods are costly, labor intensive and limited in their effectiveness because they only reach small number of prospective clinical trial participants. I contend that Facebook with over 200 million users, LinkedIn with members in over 140 different countries and Twitter which is growing rapidly would be ideal for clinical trial recruitment and retention purposes. Others have also proposed this idea.

Finally, while the use of social media to promote approved drugs and devices may be difficult because of regulatory constraints, it can be utilized to keep the public informed about prospective new medicines and promote a company’s image or brand. There is no question that the public perception of the pharmaceutical industry has been severely tarnished over the last few years.  The industry’s continued lack of transparency and failure to adequately disclose potential safety risks about some approved products continues perpetuate a negative image. One way to restore public trust and confidence is to use social media to actively engage the public in conversation on wellness, addressing unmet medical needs and prospective new medicines and treatments that are being developed. Also, social media platforms could be employed to showcase community outreach programs and discuss educational initiatives to improve science education and training.

Social media is no longer a new phenomenon or technology. It is a legitimate form of communication which has become an integral part of the Web 2.0 experience. I suspect that the life sciences industry will have to make a decision about social media in the not so distant future—or possibly miss a potentially game-changing business opportunity. And, as Ken Kesey aptly said in Tom Wolfe’s ‘The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test’—“You’re either on the bus…or off the bus.”

 Until next time...

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

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

Today is a sad day in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology blogging world. Pharmalot, a two year old, pioneering blog created by the intrepid Ed Silverman and the Star Ledger News has decided to call it quits. Unfortunately, the Star Ledger is in dire financial straits and it could no longer provide Ed with the support he needed to continue to run the Pharmalot blog. Please read Ed’s last blog post for the full story.

Pharmalot was a well crafted and informative blog. I frequently (more times then I care to admit) used Pharmalot as source material for many of my posts at BioJobBlog. I am not sure how I will fill the void left by Pharmalot’s untimely  demise!

I first met Ed about 8 years ago when he did a story about a biopharmaceutical company that I founded (along with Abe Abuchowski) called Prolong Pharmaceuticals.  His coverage was outstanding and I am pleased to report that Prolong is still in business today. Ed and I reconnected a little over a year ago at a panel discussion about scientific integrity and journalism. Ed shared the podium with the WSJ Health Blog, the New York Times, Advanstar Publications and several well known authors who write about pharma and biotech. I was truly impressed with his understanding of the pharmaceutical industry (he is a journalist not a scientist) and his commitment to telling people the truth regardless of the consequences. I took his message to heart and have attempted to apply the same philosophy to my posts at BioJobBlog.

I want to personally thank Ed for his unwavering commitment to journalistic integrity and his help in ferreting out the truth. I wish him the best for whatever the future may hold for him—he will be sorely missed.

Until next time…

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

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