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

Sanofi Aventis asked it entire sales force to remain at home the Monday after Thanksgiving to wait for a phone call to see whether or not they still had jobs. Nice way for the affected employees to spend Thanksgiving, eh?

Sanofi-Aventis is laying off an unspecified number of US sales reps, as the firm restructures because of generic exposure on some of its lead products including its blockbuster anti-clotting drug Plavix. The layoffs are part of a transformation that began last year, shortly after new CEO Chris Viehbacher took charge at the company. At the time, Sanofi-Aventis announced plans to cut 10% or less of its 6,500 US reps. According to a post at BNET, the company currently employs about 5,600 reps. Those laid off will get three weeks’ base pay per year of service, up to a maximum of 78 weeks’ base pay.

A company spokesperson said “Sanofi-Aventis U.S. is continuing to evolve in order to deliver greater value to our customers in a rapidly changing business climate. This includes changes to our sales force to better correspond with market dynamics and customer needs. As a part of our continuing transformation, we have identified areas where we will prioritize sales support and others where reductions are necessary.”

Sanofi joins a growing number of pharmaceutical companies that made it something of a tradition to layoff employees immediately before or during the holiday season. I guess company executives believe that the blow may be less devastating if the ex-employees get to spend more time with their families during the holidays. Unlike most corporate executives who are paid millions when they are fired, many laid off pharmaceutical companies will have a tough time finding new employment opportunities in the rapidly shrinking US pharmaceutical job market. At last count, about 59,000 pharmaceutical employees lost their jobs in 2009. Don’t be surprised if more pharmaceutical layoffs are announced in the coming weeks.

Until next time...

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

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

The Pharmalot Blog reported today that AstraZeneca offered all of it sales representatives—numbering 5,000-6,000—a buyout option. However, AstraZeneca prefers to avoid the term buyout and instead instructed its reps to ’self identify’ whether or not they want a package to leave the company. According to the post, an AstraZeneca spokesman declined to discuss how many reps it would like to shed, but did provide this statement:

“AstraZeneca is making changes to our sales force, which will be managed first by looking at vacancies and offering field sales employees the opportunity to self-identify whether they are interested in leaving the company. We will know the full scope of the changes in the coming weeks.”

Like many other pharma companies, AstraZeneca will lose $11.1 billion in patented-protected revenue by the end of 2012 and face stiff generic competition.

Pharma sales reps, like R&D scientists, have been facing tough times over the past three years or so. In the late 1990s, pharma companies hired massive numbers of reps, only to realize several years later, that increasing the number of reps didn’t necessarily translate into increase drug sales. The economic downturn, coupled with projected loss of revenues due to patent expiry of blockbuster drugs over the next few years, provided pharma with an opportunity to downsize. Finally, the growing use of web-based strategies to educate physicians, contract sales forces and a diminishing number of products led to the demise of the pharma rep as we know it.

My recommendation to downsized reps is to get some biotechnology training or device/diagnostic training and to try and leverage previous experience into sales jobs at biotechnology and devices companies. Both industries have enormous growth potential and the transition from pharma to them shouldn’t be all that onerous.

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• 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 (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A much-anticipated Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report was released on Wednesday that will likely help House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman bolster support for his fledgling follow-on biologics (FOB) bill. For those of you who haven’t been closely following the debate over proposed legislation to create a regulatory framework for approval of FOBs in the US, I provide a brief synopsis.

The Promoting Innovation and Access to Life-Saving Medicines Act (H.R.1427) introduced by US Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA), Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Nathan Deal (R-GA) calls for an abbreviated development pathway (at the discretion of the agency), the possibility of substitution or interchangeability (if the follow-on biologics manufacturer can prove a high degree of structurally similarity and an identical mode of action) and five years of data exclusivity. In contrast, The Pathways for Biosimilar Act (H.R. 1548) introduced by US Representatives Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Joe Barton(R-TX) requires clinical data, rigorous immunogenicity testing and limits on interchangeability and substitution provisions for follow-on biologics. Further, it calls for a minimum of 12 or up to 14 years of data exclusivity for innovator companies—a period during which FDA can’t rely on innovator data to approve follow-on biologics. For example, if a biotechnology drug was approved in 2009, the earliest that FDA could consider and approve an application for a competing follow-on product is 2021.

The FTC report concluded that a 12- to 14-year wait is unnecessary because follow-on biologics will not be offered at the same steep discounts as traditional generic drugs. It also pointed out that no evidence exists that biologic patents will not hold up. The agency estimates follow-on biologics would be sold at discounts ranging from 10 percent to 30 percent. Not surprisingly, the FTC did not recommend a specific number of exclusivity years. This allows legislators to continue to squabble and debate the point ad nauseum, until concessions are made by both innovator and follow-on biologics proponents.

The measure by Eshoo and Barton has garnered 88 co-sponsors, while Waxman and Deal's bill has 11. In the Senate, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee reached a bipartisan compromise on follow-on biologics in 2007 that allowed for 12 years of exclusivity, but that deal seems unlikely. Democrats are trying to address generic firms' concerns that brand companies could make slight changes to their products and start the exclusivity period over again. Some senators introduced a more generic-friendly bill like Waxman's earlier this year.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the data exclusivity provisions in the final legislation will be five years—a period identical to that provided stipulated in the 1984 Hatch Waxman Act, which created the US generic pharmaceutical industry. 

Stay tuned for new updates on this unfolding drama!

Until next time...

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

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