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

Despite a lull in layoffs over the past summer, this fall is shaping up to another bad one for pharmaceutical employees. Late last week Novartis announced that it was laying off about 2,000 employees. Prior to the Novartis announcement, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Merck have all disclosed plans to eliminate thousands of jobs on a worldwide basis.  To add insult to injury, Sanofi Aventis told its employees today that the company would be shifting operations from New Jersey to Massachusetts and that hundred of employees would be losing their jobs. While a Sanofi spokesperson refused to specify the exact number of employees who may lose their jobs, estimates are in the hundreds, mainly in R&D and sales in the oncology and cardiovascular areas.

The announcement was not unexpected because several weeks ago the company announced that it would cut another $2.9 billion in costs to offset pending generic encroachment on its top selling medications Plavix and Avapro. Further, consolidation of Sanofi’s R&D operations and its early development work to the Boston area is mainly a result of its acquisition of Genzyme earlier this year. To that end, later-stage development work will remain at Sanofi’s headquarters in Bridgewater, NJ while pharmaceutical R&D, Sanofi Pasteur biologics and global oncology has already been moved to Massachusetts. At present, Sanofi employs about 3,000 people in New Jersey and 5,000 in Massachusetts (including Genzyme employees).

Interestingly, while job cuts are taking place in western markets, hiring is brisk in emerging like China and India. For example, several months ago Pfizer announced that it was closing down its antibiotic discovery program in the US and moving it to China. Likewise, Novartis plans on sending some medicinal chemistry and regulatory work overseas to India. If the downsizing and outsourcing trends continue at their current pace, it will become increasingly difficult for most Americans to find pharmaceutical R&D jobs in the US. Can anybody still wonder why we may be losing ground to countries like India and China?

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

In the play Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare famously wrote:

"What’s in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet ..."

While I am not so sure about the “sweet part,”  French pharmaceutical giant Sanofi-Aventis believes that no matter what it calls itself it will still be the same old company. To that end, Sanofi-Aventis last Friday announced that it will officially shorten its name to simply “Sanofi.” 

Sanofi is one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies based on revenues. It was formed in 2004 in a merger between two French pharmaceutical companies, Sanofi-Synthelabo and Aventis. The reason for the name change; most people (me included) simply called it Sanofi rather than Sanofi-Aventis. And, perhaps more appropriately, the company wanted its name to be “recognizable and easy to pronounce” around the world.

In addition to the name change, the company also declared a dividend of 2.50 euro for its shareholders that will be paid either in cash or stock. The dividend payout will take effect by June 16, 2011

As you may recall, Sanofi purchased Genzyme last month in a $20.1 billion deal. Perhaps the name change was announced because Sanofi-Genzyme is much easier to pronounce and has a better “ring to it” than Sanofi-Aventis-Genzyme?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

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

The almost two-year manufacturing woes of orphan drug manufacturer Genzyme have been well documented and publicized. Despite these problems and an FDA consent decreed, it was not enough to stop Sanofi-Aventis from doggedly pursuing Genzyme as a take over target for the past year.

As you may recall, production shortages of several of Genyzme’s key products, most notably Fabrazyme, a treatment for Fabry disease (a rare genetically inherited lysosomal enzyme storage disease) forced Genzyme to ration Fabrazyme to patients. Fabrazyme is the only approved treatment for Fabry disease and the rationing plan called for patients already taking Fabrazyme to receive half the approved dosage while newly diagnosed patients were prevented from receiving the drug at all!

A post on the Pharmalot blog last week revealed that at least half a dozen patients with Fabry disease who were taking Fabrazyme filed a lawsuit against Genzyme and New York’s Mt. Sinai Medical School for the ongoing shortages and the ill-conceived rationing plan. According to the lawsuit, as many as three patients with Fabry disease have died as a result of the Genzyme rationing plan. Mt. Sinai was named as a co-defendant in the case because it licensed Fabrazyme to Genzyme and went along with the company’s rationing program. Further, the lawsuit contends that neither Genzyme nor Mt. Sinai had adequately tested whether or not the reduced dosage was effective as a treatment for Fabry disease. Obviously, the FDA approved Fabrazyme as a treatment for Fabry disease based on the dosage information that Genzyme determined to be optimal in it BLA.

The lawsuit will likely never make it to trial (Genzyme will undoubtedly settle) and therefore have little or no impact on the impending acquisition of Genzyme by Sanofi-Aventis. Companies that are being acquired or merging don’t like it much when there is outstanding litigation that may interfere with the transaction.

Nevertheless, Genzyme’s manufacturing problems highlights one of the weaknesses of the US Orphan Drug Act. For those of you who may not know companies granted approval of drugs for orphan indications (< 200,000 patients) are guaranteed seven years of market exclusively (along with tax credits, grants and less onerous clinical trials). This means that no other company (aside from the innovator company) will be granted regulatory approval for a similar orphan product for seven years from the approval date of the first product. Not surprisingly, this forces patients with orphan diseases to exclusively rely on a single drug that is manufactured by a single company i.e. there is no backup. And, if an orphan drug manufacturer has regulatory compliance issues or goes out of business etc the patients that rely on the drug are SOL (as it is said in the vernacular). Unfortunately, this was exactly what happen with Fabrazyme when Genzyme’s chronic manufacturing problems resulted in shortages of the drug.

While many people take drug companies to task for developing so-called “me too” drugs there is a reason why FDA and other regulatory agencies approve them. That is: when there is more than one manufacturer of drugs that treat a particular indication then there will be alternate treatments available to patients if something goes awry with one or another of the products. Although I am a strong proponent of the Orphan Drug Act, the recent entry of several major pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and others into the orphan drug development space suggests that the seven years of market exclusivity offered by the Act may no longer be necessary. Further, shortening or eliminated the market exclusivity term would like help to increase competition among orphan drug developers. Increased competition would, in turn, and then help to drive down the price of orphan drugs which are currently exorbitantly expensive and sometimes not covered by insurers. Changing the orphan drug act would primarily benefit patients with rare diseases and not drug makers. And, in the end, helping patients is admittedly all that matters!

Until next time...

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

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

After a five month-long series of  very public and often acrimonious negotiations, it appears that Sanofi-Aventis and Genzyme may be close to deal that would enable the French drug maker to acquire one of the world’s largest public biotechnology companies.

According to the NY Times and a number of life sciences blogs, both companies have agreed in principle on a framework for a takeover deal. The major sticking point in the negotiations is Sanofi’s tender offer of $69 per share of Genzyme stock. Genzyme executives and industry analysts view the offer as “too low” and believe that a stock share price in the mid-70s is more reasonable and likely in the end. Another sticking point is the success of Genzyme’s leukemia treatment Campath (alemtuzumab, which is in clinical development to treat multiple sclerosis but will be marketed under the brand name Lemtrada if approved). Genzyme believes that Campath will likely be a winner whereas Sanofi executives are not so sure. Consequently, the deal will likely include additional payments to Genzyme if the drug meets or exceeds certain sale targets for either or both indications.

Persons with knowledge of the negotiations suggest that the specifics of a deal will likely be worked out of the next week or so. This is because, on Monday, Sanofi signed a nondisclosure agreement with Genzyme to conduct due diligence for the deal. Really? What has Sanofi been doing for the past 5 months?

The Genzyme deal is critical for Sanofi which desperately needs to quickly get into the biotechnology game, particularly in the areas of oncology and neurological disorders. Last week, Sanofi’s experimental drug to treat breast cancer, iniparib failed to meet clinical endpoints in a late stage clinical trial. Also, Plavix, Sanofi’s top-selling anti-clotting drug will lose patent protection in May 2012 (FDA recently gave Sanofi an additional six months of marketing exclusivity based on a newly awarded pediatric indication). Plavix is the world’s second best selling prescription medication.

I don’t know about you, but I hope that this deal gets done soon! From the outset, it was apparent to most life sciences pundits and industry insiders that Sanofi would prevail and ultimately acquire Genzyme. Unfortunately, Genzyme’s ongoing manufacturing woes provided Sanofi with an excuse to “lowball” its initial offers. And, surprisingly, Genzyme’s management team had the chutzpah and wherewithal to push back hard.  The bottom line: it is a great deal for both companies—“Just Do It.”

Until next time...

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

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

The buzz at the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference that is taking place in San Francisco this week is that Sanofi-Aventis and Genzyme are close to inking a deal. As you may recall, Sanofi made an unsolicited offer last summer to buy the troubled orphan drug manufacturer. Sanofi offered to purchase Genzyme for $69 per share but the offer was summarily rejected as “too low” by Henri Termeer, Genzyme’s embattled CEO who has been running the company for over 20 years since its inception.

The very public and often acrimonious haggling over the purchase price has become legion in some investment banking and bioventure circles. Nevertheless, most industry and financial analysts predict that Sanofi will prevail and ultimately acquire Genzyme possibly for a share price in the low to mid $70s.  Sanofi desperately needs Genzyme to get into the biotechnology fracas; a field that it seemingly chose to largely ignore for the past 20 years--go figure!  Consequently, it is likely that Sanofi will eventually give Genzyme everything it wants to consummate the deal

Yet, despite progress being reported from the conference, Termeer and Sanofi Aventis CEO Chris Viehbacher haven’t met face-to-face to discuss the terms of a possible deal. However, Viehbacher did mention that Sanofi was “still committed” to purchasing Genzyme.

Stay tuned for the next installment of the saga.

Until next time...

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

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

The expanding European financial crisis is forcing drug makers to continue to explore ways in which to cut costs. Faced with budget deficits amid a global economic crisis, European countries such as Germany, France and Greece have cut or plan to cut their health-care spending. Greece last month ordered drugmakers, including France’s largest drug maker Sanofi-Aventis, to cut prices by 3 percent to 27 percent to help rescue its economy. 

Not surprisingly, Sanofi Aventis responded by announcing new job cuts and more stringent cost control measures. Yesterday, Sanofi’s Chief Financial Officer announced at an analyst meeting in Los Angeles that “We are restructuring. We are changing our marketing model. We are merging sales forces, we are reducing sales forces, having a multiproduct sales force. We will continue to do that.” Most of the job cuts and cost saving measures will come at the expense of sales and marketing personnel. The size of pharmaceutical R&D and sales and marketing workforces have been devastated over the past three years with over 200,000 employees losing their jobs.

Sanofi-Aventis Chief Executive Officer Chris Viehbacher, who joined the company in 2008, shut or sold plants and canceled the least promising research projects in a bid to trim 2 billion euros ($2.46 billion) in costs. These actions, coupled with the most recent restructuring efforts were enacted to ensure 2013 earnings are at least equal to 2008 profit. Like most other big pharma companies, Sanofi has been looking to emerging markets and consumer products for new income as competition from generic drugs hurts sales. The anti-clotting drug Plavix which is Sanofi’s largest selling drug generating over $4.0 billion annually will lose patent protection in 2011-2012. Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi’s marketing partner for Plavix in the US, also exceeded $4.0 billion in sales last year.

Sanofi also announced today that it acquired the assets of Montreal-based Canderm Pharma, Inc a consumer products company for $1.9 billion signaling its intention to aggressively enter the North American consumer healthcare products markets.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

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

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

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

Until next time....

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

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

About a year ago, I was eating lunch and bunch of pharma executives were at the table next to me. I inadvertently overhead bits of their conversation and I heard the words, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube mentioned. This suggested to me that pharma was more aware of social media (and its business implications) than pharma publicly cared to admit. Pharma has been reluctant to embrace social media because of possible legal and regulatory ramifications. Nevertheless, a few companies have decided to boldly go where no pharma company has gone before—to YouTube.

The Eye on FDA blog, which is very bullish on social media, has been keeping aof pharma companies that have created channels on YouTube, the video site owned by Google. To date, Sanofi Pasteur, GSK, Abbot and JNJ have taken the YouTube plunge (see SanofiPasteurTV , GSKVision, AbbottChannel, andJNJHealth).  I suspect that pharma companies are willing to take a risk on YouTube, because unlike other social media platforms, they can disable the functionality that allows viewer to leave comments, kudos or kvetches after viewing videos. This shields the companies from unwarranted claims, misinformation about its products and negative publicity.

At present, the US Food and Drug Administration, has issued little or no guidance on the use of social media by drug makers. This means that drug makers are in uncharted territory and can experiment with social media without fear of much regulatory oversight or scrutiny.  Now that pharma has broken the social media barrier, I wonder whether MySpace, Facebook and Twitter (the hottest new social media tool at the moment) will be next. Interestingly, I learned yesterday that Novartis uses twitter and can be followed @Novartis.

Off the record conversations with MySpace representatives suggest that a number of pharmaceuticals have quietly created branded product pages on MySpace for years.  As the MySpace rep put it, how can you ignore an audience of 60 million people?  Further, Facebook’s fan pages are growing in popularity and don’t be surprise to see pharma pages begin to appear there. It will be interesting to see how pharma will incorporate social media into its business and marketing models in the future.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Video Watching!!!!!!!!

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

Astra Zeneca and Sanofi-Aventis announced job cuts today that will take place in the UK and Germany.

AstraZeneca says it plans to cut more than 300 jobs at its research and development hub at Alderley Park near Wilmslow England, 60 more than unions had feared.

The company, one of the biggest employers in Cheshire, said last week that it was examining its global R&D structure, prompting trade unions to claim that 244 jobs were likely to go at Alderley Park - its largest site for research - which employs more than 3,500. The majority of those affected at Alderley Park work on R&D into respiratory conditions, while there will be a smaller number of job losses from the cardio-vascular team.

Sanofi Aventis plans to eliminate 380 sales and marketing jobs in Germany, one-fifth of the total, because of difficult market conditions, a company spokesperson said. Sanofi Aventis currently employs 1,900 sales and marketing personnel in Germany. The company has 10,000 employees in the country.

The cuts will be made through a voluntary departure plan and retirements, the spokesperson said, citing difficulties in obtaining reimbursements, competition from generic drugs, and falling prices as reasons for the cuts.

The spokesman declined to comment on German press reports which said Sanofi Aventis's sales in Germany fell 8 per cent last year.

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

As many of you know, the pharmaceutical industry has been trending downward for the past year or so. Weak pipelines, uncontrolled corporate expansion and soaring drug prices have been offered to explain the recent down turn. However, the real back story to the downturn is the loss of  future revenues that is expected to occur starting in 2010 when many current blockbuster pharmaceutical products, e.g., Lipitor (Pfizer), Plavix (Sanofi Aventis), Avandia (GlaxoSmithKline), Zyprexa (Lilly), and others lose patent protection.

The loss of patent protection of branded blockbuster products is almost always accompanied by the development and subsequent, regulatory approval of lower cost, generic versions of the drugs. The Hatch Waxman Act permits generic manufacturers to begin to develop generic versions of branded products five years prior to patent expiry. This allows generic manufacturers to develop and gain regulatory approval of their products well in advance of a patent expiry date. Further, generic manufacturers usually launch their products (and flood the market) with generic versions of a branded product on the same day that its patent lapses. To induce and hasten generic development, Hatch Waxman grants market exclusivity for 180-days (6 month) to the first company that gains US regulatory approval for a generic version of a branded product that has lost patent protection.

Revenue generation and a company’s market share of branded drug products generally fall precipitously following introduction of less costly, generic versions of the drugs. From a financial standpoint, this is not surprising—why would anybody chose to pay more for a branded product when there is a cheaper and therapeutically efficacious generic alternative available?  In the past, most pharmaceutical companies chose to neglect (and ultimately abandon) blockbuster products after generic versions were introduced.  Many companies chose this strategy because, in the past, there was always another blockbuster in the pipeline that would replace the lost revenues caused by generic competition.

Unfortunately, as we all know, the days of the billon-dollar-a year blockbuster drug are long gone! This realization has caused many pharmaceutical companies to rethink their business strategies when a blockbuster drugs lose patent expiry. Many pharmaceutical companies are experimenting with a relatively new kind of product called an authorized generic–a copycat version of a company’s branded drug that is sold through a licensing agreement between the innovator company and a generic-drug manufacturer. This type of arrangement allows the innovator company to hold on to a larger share of a revenue stream from the drug once it loses patent protection and it falls prey to generic manufacturers.

Authorized generics have always made sense to me–who knows how to manufacture, market and distribute a drug better than the company that originally created it? Further, why would a company choose to give up on a revenue stream simply because a product can no longer generate billions each year due to generic encroachment– wouldn’t hundreds or even tens of millions suffice? Much to my surprise, late last week, Merck & Co announced that it had inked a deal for an authorized generic form of its blockbuster osteoporosis drug  Fosamax after the US patent expires on February 6. Merck did not disclose the terms of the deal or the identity of it generic manufacturing partner.

Industry analysts have suggested that cheaper generics will not only batter sales of Merck’s Fosomax but could also hurt rival Actonel (Proctor & Gamble Co/Sanofi-Aventis) and Boniva (Roche/GalxoSmithKline). Generic manufacturers.  Barr Laboratories and TEVA are expected to launch their own generic versions on February 6 and share the 180-day market exclusivity for their respective products.

Merck, once a champion of the old pharma blockbuster model, is slowing emerging as an industry innovator. The company’s recent decision to authorize a generic version of one of its former blockbuster drugs may be a harbinger of things to come in the pharmaceutical industry. That said, I don’t understand why big biotechnology companies like Amgen, Biogen/IDEC and Genentech are unwilling to consider the authorized generic model to stave off generic competition for blockbuster biotechnology products like EPO, Avonex and Rituxan. Whether these companies like it or not, I believe that biogenerics aka follow-on biologics will be a reality in the US in the next five years. Maybe Amgen can bolster is rapidly falling stock price by inking an authorized generic deal for EPO—rather than spending hundreds of millions on patent litigation—“whadda ya think?”

Until next time…

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

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

According to Ed Silverman at Pharmalot the newly-formed executive steering committee at Sanofi-Aventis sent a letter to its R &D employees it will take care of implementing “strategic moves,” apportioning resources, overseeing overall management.

A Sanofi spokesman said “is a condensed structure, designed to facilitate quick decision making.” Yeah right–look for some corporate right sizing, allocation of strategic resources and job cuts at the French drug maker.

On another note, West Pharmaceutical Services, a Lionville, PA-based Company announced that it would shed 250 jobs or 13% of its work force as part of a restructuring program. A company spokesperson said it will reduce spending throughout the segment by consolidating two tool production operations into one facility, in Scottsdale, Ariz., and by reductions and consolidations at other production, engineering and administrative operations in North America.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!

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