Flu season is upon us and, not surprisingly, there is no dearth of information available to the public about the seasonal and H1N1 flu vaccines. Mostly there are stories about the lack of availability of the vaccines, underreporting of deaths associated from H1N1 infections and perhaps, most importantly concerns about flu vaccine safety. Despite attempts by the CDC and a few dedicated virologists like BioCrowd co-founder Vincent Racaniello, flu vaccine manufacturing is an enigma to the lay public.
While I am a card-carrying microbiologist, my knowledge of the manufacturing of flu vaccine is admittedly lacking. With this in mind, I came across an outstanding tutorial about flu vaccine manufacturing published by the College of Agriculture at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (my alma mater). The UW tutorial is easy to understand and will shed light on and help to demystify flu vaccine production for lay people (and a few scientists like me).
There was an interesting article in the New York Times this past week entitled“Do Women Need Such Big Flu Shot.” The gist of the article was that we would have more doses of influenza 2009 H1N1 vaccine if we accounted for the biological differences between the immune responses in men and women follow influenza vaccination (the article cites a study that contends that less vaccine is need to elicit an protective response in women as compared with men.
I was going to write a post about the article but I got distracted and thought I would revisit it when I had more time. Much to my surprise, Vincent Racaniello, a Bio-Crowd founder, virologist extraordinaire and host of the popular TWiV podcast series, had already “scooped” me. Professor Racaniello graciously allowed me to crib his entire post and let BioJobBlog readers decide for themselves whether or not there are real differences in the male and female immune responses to influenza vaccines or the results obtained by the scientists who conducted the study may be explain by strain to strain variation among influenza A isolates? Read Professor Racaniello’s post below and let me know what YOU think!
“Do Women Need Such Big Flu Shots?” suggests that we would have more doses of influenza 2009 H1N1 vaccine if we accounted for the biological differences between men and women. The idea is that women generate a stronger antibody response than men, and therefore require less vaccine. Does this idea have scientific support?
The opinion is based in part on a study carried out in 2004-05, in which adults were immunized with full (15 micrograms) or half-doses of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. This vaccine, made by Aventis Pasteur, contains influenza H3N2, H1N1, and B strains. Serum samples obtained before immunization and 21 days later were assayed for antibody response to each strain of influenza by hemagglutination-inhibtion. I’ve taken the data on geometric mean serum HI titers according to age, sex, and dose and plotted them on a graph:
Based on the results the authors conclude that “Significantly higher geometric mean titer responses in women were identified for all ages, regardless of dose or influenza strain. Half-dose vaccination may be an effective strategy for healthy adults younger than 50 years in the setting of an influenza vaccine shortage.” But are these immune responses protective?
HI titers of 1:40 or more (which would be reported as 40 or higher in the graph) are believed to indicate levels of antibody that would protect against infection with influenza virus. By this criteria, the full and half dose of vaccine would provide protection agains the influenza H3N2 and B viruses in both men and women. The results confirm that females respond more strongly to the same dose of vaccine than men. But look at the results with the H1N1 strain – in all subjects, no matter the dose of vaccine or gender, the antibody response would not be sufficient to protect against infection. Furthermore, the response is only slightly better than in women.
In interpret these observations to mean that the antibody response to inactivated influenza virus vaccine is not universally more robust in women compared with men – it appears to depend on the virus strain. Clearly clinical studies are required to address this question. Even after spending millions of dollars to decide whether to give women less influenza vaccine, a new strain of influenza virus might come along that induces no better antibody response in women than in men.
My conclusion is that it would not be possible to determine conclusively that women could receive half the amount of inactivated influenza virus vaccine as men. I would rather spend money on developing new ways to produce as much influenza vaccine as needed as quickly as possible – such as by making virus-like particles in plants.
Engler RJ, Nelson MR, Klote MM, VanRaden MJ, Huang CY, Cox NJ, Klimov A, Keitel WA, Nichol KL, Carr WW, Treanor JJ, & Walter Reed Health Care System Influenza Vaccine Consortium (2008). Half- vs full-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (2004-2005): age, dose, and sex effects on immune responses. Archives of internal medicine, 168 (22), 2405-14 PMID: 19064822
Late last week, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved GlaxoSmithKline’s cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix for use in girls and women ages 10 to 25 and also approved Gardasil —Merck’s cervical cancer vaccine previously approved in 2006 for use in girls and women—for boys and men ages 9 to 26. For those of you who may not know, over 99% of human cervical cancers are caused by infections with cancer-causing strains of the human papilloma virus (HPV) which also causes venereal warts. Vaccination with Cervarix protects against cervical cancer by inducing immunity against HPV 16 and 18 (which cause most cervical cancers in developed nations) whereas Gardasil affords protection against HPV 16 and 18 as well as HPV 6 and 11, strains that cause venereal warts (which don’t lead to cancer).
Despite FDA’s approval to vaccinate boys with Gardasil to prevent HPV infections, the Centers for Disease Control’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)— which guides national policy on use of vaccines—decided yesterday to recommend the use of the vaccine in girls and women but didn’t fully endorse its use in males. Typically, ACIP recommendations are adopted by professional medical associations and set the standards of practice for physicians. Also, its recommendations play a major role in determining whether or not insurers and third party payors will reimburse patients who are vaccinated. The new recommendations mean, in effect, that physicians and clinics may now administer the vaccine at their discretion to boys and men ages 9 to 26, but they are not expected to offer it. In contrast, vaccination of girls and women ages 10 to 25 will be strongly recommended, readily available and reimbursable. This means that parents may consider the vaccine as an option for their sons, but some health insurers may choose not to cover the shots—an option which is sure to severely limit the numbers of boys and men who are vaccinated with Gardasil.
The ACIP committee decided not to include Gardasil immunization for boys and men on its recommended list because several members, most notably a medical economist, questioned whether vaccinating boys would be cost effective in the long run. At the heart of the debate was whether or not it was appropriate and cost-effective to vaccinate boys for a problem (venereal warts) that can be embarrassing and uncomfortable but is not life-threatening. For those of you who may not know, Gardasil immunization is expensive and requires a series of three injections that cost $130 each ($390 total). Cervarix, which also requires a series of three injections, is planned to be offered for $385.
Last year in the United States, about 37 percent of girls ages 13 to 17 started the Gardasil vaccine series, a national immunization survey showed, and about half of them completed it. Not a great track record for a vaccine demonstrated to prevent cervical cancer and dramatically reduce the transmission of venereal warts. Nevertheless, yesterday’s decision to recommend vaccination for girls and women but not boys and men makes no sense to me from a public health perspective and it almost smacks of gender bias. Let me explain.
Like all other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), HPV is transmitted from men to women and visa versa. Based on years of epidemiological studies, the only effective way to reduce the overall incidence of STDs is to implement strategies that prevent infections in both females and males. While boys and men can’t develop cervical cancer, they do contract venereal warts and perhaps, more importantly, can serve as carriers or reservoirs of HPV infection in the population. In other words, infected males (who may or may not show symptoms of HPV infection) still possess the potential to transmit it to sexually-active, unvaccinated girls and women. Consequently, while the incidence of HPV infections may begin to decrease among women after immunization, it will never be completely eliminated and the possibility of developing cervical cancer will continue to be a public health concern.
While the ACIP’s understanding of the transmission of STDs is tragically flawed, its willingness to publicly disclose cost effectiveness as a reason to not endorse HPV vaccination for males is even more egregious! The agency’s decision begs the question: Which is more costly; 10,000 American women developing cervical cancer each year (and countless others going for unnecessary cervical biopsies because of “bad” Pap smears) or a heads up to insurance companies that they ought to cover the costs of male HPV immunizations?
The ACIP’s reluctance to recommend male HPV vaccination based on economic and health care cost concerns rather than on public health implications is yet another example of how broken the US healthcare system is and how drastically it needs to be reformed. Allowing 3,700 women to die each year in the US from cervical cancer when there is a safe and effective way to prevent these deaths is, in my opinion, unconscionable!
I regularly watch Real Time with Bill Maher and generally agree with many of the political views and ideas that he espouses. In fact, I am a fan! However, his rant two weeks ago about the H1N1 vaccines, and vaccination in general, showed me that while politically astute and incisive he has absolutely no understanding about science and modern medicine (see video below). Making matters worst, his guest, former conservative senator Bill Frist, a surgeon by training, was ill prepared to correct and refute some of Maher’s outrageous assertions regarding the differences between the two currently available H1N1 vaccines and the basic principles of vaccinology.
Maher is quick to tell people that they are stupid when they don’t agree with his ideas or political views. And, he rightfully criticized George W. Bush for routinely making decisions about important issues based on “his gut feelings” rather than facts. Ironically, this is exactly what Bill Maher does when he talks to his guests about medicine and food. Maher, who may be a vegetarian and is clearly anti-traditional medicine, is quick to point out that Westernized medicine and food production is profit driven and consequently, any information or advice offered by the US government is little more than a ploy to keep people sick and fat. In other words, don’t trust anything that the government tells you if you believe otherwise or you heard it from a celebrity.
I suspect that science wasn’t Bill’s “cup of tea” (he frequently calls the tea baggers who don’t trust anything that the Obama administration tells them idiots and morons) and may have never taken anything he learned about science seriously. If he had, he might have learned how vaccines work and realized that modern vaccines (the first vaccines were produced in the 1780s) protect over 95% of people who receive them from devastating childhood diseases and even cervical cancer. Instead, he cites bogus and scientifically refuted claims about vaccine safety including mercury poisoning, links to autism and the miniscule possibility of developing Guerin-Barr Syndrome (which was first observed in large number of patients following vaccination with the 1976 Swine Flu vaccine). Shockingly, despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary he continues to spew misinformation and flat-out wrong claims about vaccines. Ironically, his wrong-headed vaccine tirades are remarkably similar to those of the Birthers —people who refuse to believe that President Obama is an American despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary—and racists who contend that Obama is a Muslim—two groups that he is quick to bash and dismiss as crazies and morons. In other words, Maher believes that he is right even though he is clearly misinformed or wrong!
Originally, I was going to write this post after Maher’s “Real Time” tirade about vaccines almost two weeks ago on Real Time. However, I relented but couldn’t help myself after reading an article in today’s Scientist Times about a pregnant woman who lost her second child after she contracted the flu. As many of you may know, pregnant women are very susceptible to influenza which could have serous consequences for the mother and baby. This is an exchange the woman had with a physical therapist with whom she was working to regain muscle control after being hospitalized (and near death) for almost 4 months:
“Have you ever read the labels?” she (the physical therapist asked). “They’re so full of toxins.”
Asked if she realized that a shot, had it existed in June, might have saved her client and her baby, she frowned and went back to her clipboard.
Are you kidding me—full of toxins? This is exactly what Maher was trying to imply during his anti-vaccine rant on Real Time. Unfortunately, millions of people listen to him and celebrities like Oprah, Dr. Phil and Maher and many believe (and blindly follow) their recommendations and advice. While this may not be a problem when talking about hair color, books to read or weight loss it is extremely troubling and dangerous when it comes to scientific and medical advice. The problem is that a vast majority of Americans are scientifically illiterate and are either incapable or unwilling to analyze and evaluate scientific or medical information on their own. This forces many people to rely on the Internet, government agencies and sometimes healthcare professionals to do their medical and scientific thinking for them. And when things go wrong, or not as advertised, they are quick to accuse the government or the healthcare industry of withholding information and engaging in nefarious conspiracies. This is exacerbated by the fact that science and medical reporting in the US is grossly inadequate, often wrong and frequently designed to be as sensationalistic as possible. Is it any wonder why the American public is often confused and misinformed about science and medicine?
My scientific training has taught me to analyze and evaluate all available data before I draw any conclusions on a topic. And, as an infectious disease expert I believe that childhood vaccines are unequivocally safe and effective. To that end, they have substantially reduced the morbidity and mortality associated with mumps, measles, diphtheria, whooping cough, pneumonia, tetanus, almost eradicated polio and eliminated smallpox from the planet. There is no doubt that there are risks associated with vaccination and that a small number of those vaccinated may experience some side effects or serious adverse events. But, the small risks associated with modern vaccines don’t outweigh the benefits and positive effects on billions of people who may have lost their lives if they hadn’t been developed in the first place. I wonder whether or not an anti-vaccine movement would exist today if smallpox and polio were still causing as much death, disfigurement and paralysis as they had prior to development of the smallpox and polio vaccines in the mid 20th century.
In closing, as an American, I believe that everybody is entitled to their opinions and the right to freely express them. However, I implore Bill Maher get the FACTS right before summarily bashing a topic and making recommendations to the millions of people who watch Real Time and believe what he says. Otherwise, he is no smarter or better than the ignorant, close-minded, right wingers who he regularly trashes on his show.
Without fanfare, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) quietly announced today that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval for CERVARIX® [Human papillomavirus bivalent (types 16 and 18) vaccine, recombinant] for the prevention of cervical pre-cancers and cervical cancer associated with oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 for use in girls and young women (aged 10-25).
It has taken GSK over three years to garner US regulatory approval for CERVARIX® which has been approved and used in over 100 other countries in the world. Early "unspecified concerns" delayed approval and, as recently as two weeks, FDA delayed a decision despite recommendations from an advisory panel to approve the vaccine. Coincidentally, a week before the agency was expected to announce approval for the vaccine, a British girl died after she was vaccinated with Cervarix. While FDA spokespersons claimed that the girl’s death following vaccination had nothing to do with the delaying a decision on Cervarix, many industry pundits believe that the FDA was reluctant to approve the vaccine in light of the sensational media coverage in the UK surrounding the incident. After an autopsy was performed on the girl, British authorities announced that a massive cardiac tumor that had infiltrated one of her lungs, not Cervarix was responsible for her death.
Today’s approval of Cervarix provides American consumers with an alterative to Gardasil, Merck’s cervical cancer vaccine that was approved about two years ago. That said, the ability to protect girls and young women from the possibility of developing cervical cancer is more important than which of the two vaccines is used to induce immunity. I plan on immunizing my daughter when she is old enough!
The Belgian chemical manufacturer Solvay announced today that it had agreed to sell its pharmaceutical business unit to Abbott Pharmaceuticals for $6.6 billion. By purchasing Solvay, Abbott gains access to emerging markets in Eastern Europe and Asia along with new therapeutic areas, including hormone therapies and vaccines. Solvay's flu vaccine Influvac will give Abbott an entrant in the burgeoning vaccines market, which is currently dominated by European pharmaceutical giants like GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis.
Abbott already holds U.S. marketing rights for Solvay's Trilipix and TriCor, drugs which raise "good" HDL cholesterol while reducing triglycerides and "bad" LDL cholesterol.
Solvay's other top-selling drugs include the Parkinson's disease treatment Duodopa and hormone therapy drugs AndroGel and Duphaston. It is not clear whether or not the Solvay purchase will affect ongoing pharmaceutical operations or staffing decision in the US. However, I suspect that there will be management changes and layoffs in Europe.
In other news, Johnson & Johnson bought an 18 percent stake in Dutch biotechnology company Crucell NV, which is trying to develop a universal flu vaccine, while competitor Merck acquired the rights to sell Australia-based CSL Ltd.'s Afluria flu vaccine in the U.S.
The Solvay deal is the latest in a string of mergers and acquisitions, as cash-rich pharmaceutical companies race to acquire new products amid looming patent expiry on blockbuster drugs. Earlier this year Swiss drugmaker Roche acquired Genentech following similar deals uniting Pfizer Inc. and Wyeth, and Merck & Co. Inc. with Schering-Plough.
Expect more M&A activity in the life sciences sector before year’s end.
Professor Vincent Racaniello, a BioCrowd co-founder and virologist who studies the pathogenesis of polio and influenza viruses commented that there will likely be two influenza vaccines offered this fall: a trivalent vaccine consisting of seasonal H3N2 and H1N1 strains and an influenza B strain; and a monovalent one consisting of the 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain.
He posited an interesting question to BioCrowd members earlier today: "Will you be receiving a flu vaccine this fall, and if so, which one?"
To weigh in on the topic and find out which vaccines makes sense for you, check out Professor Racaniello’s influenza vaccine survey and discussion at BioCrowd!
Yesterday, Sanofi-aventis (S-A) agreed to acquire a controlling stake in Indian vaccine maker, Shantha Biotechnics, for an undisclosed amount. And, recently, Abbott announced a definitive agreement to acquire the nutrition businesses of Wockhardt Limited, Carol Info Services Limited, and certain Wockhardt subsidiaries and group companies for consideration totaling approximately US$130 million in cash.
While these two recent acquisitions don’t appear to be particularly noteworthy, they speak volumes about growing Indian influence in biologics and, perhaps more importantly, in biosimilars. India, long known for its expertise in generic drug development and its ability to work with US-based companies, has expanded beyond generic pharmaceuticals into generic biologics aka biosimilars. Biosimilars have been on the Indian market for over a decade and by all accounts several Indian companies, most notably BioCon, might be able to steal biosimilar market share in Asia from the likes of Sandoz, Merck and Teva—companies expected to be major players in the emerging biosimilar market.
Both Shantha and Wockhardt possess substantial experience in biosimilar development and commercialization. To that end, Sanofi-aventis has publicly announced its desire to get into biotechnology and Abbot must expand its biotechnology pipeline beyond Humira to remain competitive. These acquisitions likely represent Sanofi’s and Abbott’s attempt to gain a foothold in the emerging Asian markets. Also, it gives both companies access to lower cost biologics R&D and manufacturing capabilities.
It will be interesting to see how things unfold over the next year or so!
A quick perusal of the media coverage of the swine flu outbreak of 2009 would lead many to conclude that this outbreak has the potential to rival or surpass the 1918 flu pandemic—widely regarded as the worst influenza outbreak in history. While the emergence of a new H1N1 swine flu variant is significant note worthy— and has possible public health implications— the unrelenting, often scientifically-inaccurate media coverage did little to quell the fear and anxiety of many Americans. Once again, the media—rather than physicians, public health officials and influenza experts—“got out in front of the story” and managed to create enough panic, fear and anxiety, the likes of which haven't been seen since the 2003 SARS pandemic. It wasn't until last Friday, when the Wall Street Journal published an interview with Dr. Peter Palese—a leading scientific expert on influenza A infections— did a clearer picture emerge about the severity and public health implications of the current swine flu pandemic.
According to Dr. Palese, there are several reasons why people and public health officials ought to be optimistic about the current pandemic:
In 1976 there was a an outbreak of an H1N1 swine virus in Fort Dix, New Jersey, which showed human to human transmission but did not go on to become a highly virulent pandemic strain
The presently circulating swine virus is most likely not more virulent than the other seasonal strains we have experienced over the last several years
The current swine virus lacks an important molecular signature (the protein PB1-F2) which was present in the 1918 virus and in the highly lethal H5N1 chicken viruses. If this virulence marker is necessary for an influenza virus to become highly pathogenic in humans or in chickens, then the current swine virus doesn’t have what it takes to become a major killer
Since people have been exposed to H1N1 viruses over many decades, we likely have some cross-reactive immunity against the swine H1N1 virus. While it may not be sufficient to prevent becoming ill, it may very well dampen the impact of the virus on mortality. I would postulate that by virtue of this “herd immunity” even a 1918-like H1N1 virus could never have the horrific effect it had in the past. The most likely outcome is that the current swine virus will become another (fourth) strain of regular seasonal influenza
The landscape of vaccines and anti-influenza drugs has dramatically improved over what it was just a few years ago. Based on what we know of the structure and sequence of the swine virus, these FDA-approved drugs and FDA-licensed vaccines (modified to include the swine strain) would be highly effective against this new virus. Also, present technologies as well as manufacturing capacities will allow us to make sufficient quantities of a swine virus vaccine for the winter 2009-10 influenza season in the US.
In other words, there is reason for concern but no need to panic beyond typical public health precautions that are taken during “normal” influenza outbreaks.
Dr. Vincent Racaniello, a viral disease expert who writes the Virology Blog, reported that as of Monday there have been laboratory confirmed cases of H1N1 infections in 30 US states with a total of 226 cases and one death in Texas. Globally, 20 countries had reported 985 cases of infection. The highest numbers are in Mexico, with 590 cases and 25 deaths. While there have been 26 deaths to date, the severity of the infection appears to be waning and person-to-person transmission appears to be low.
Unfortunately, there has been some fallout from the news media’s oft times “over the top” coverage of the pandemic. Many US hospital emergency rooms (most notably in Texas and California) have been overwhelmed and overburdened by visits from people who think they may have swine flu. Also, while some schools and daycare center closures were warranted, others may not have been. Finally, and perhaps most important, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the lay public's understanding of infectious agents and the outbreaks that they cause is grossly deficient and must be improved.
We live in a world where viral pandemics, food poisoning outbreaks and infections caused by multiple-antibiotic resistant bacteria are becoming commonplace. While vaccines, antivirals and antibiotics can afford some protection against many viral and bacterial disease, the best way to fight infectious diseases is to understand what causes them, how they are spread and what public health measures can be implemented to prevent or control their transmission. Until the world becomes better educated about infectious diseases, we will continue to be overly-dependent on the news media during future outbreaks and epidemics.
The Pharmalot blog reported today that Merck received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration to use Gardasil to prevent vaginal and vulval cancer in addition to cervical cancer.
Of late, Gardasil has been a lightening rod for controversy—mostly because of Merck’s unrelenting marketing campaigns (and the behind-the-scenes lobbying for the vaccine to be placed on the US mandatory vaccination list) coupled with the Christian right’s moral machinations about premarital sex and sexually transmitted diseases in general. Also, let’s not forget the brouhaha surrounding FDA’s decision to delay approval of GlaxoSmithKline’s competing cervical cancer vaccine called Cervarix. Finally, about a month ago, there was study published in the New England Journal of Medicine questioning the cost effectiveness of Gardasil vaccination of women after the age of 18.
Regardless of your moral, ethical or business concerns about Gardasil, the bottom line is this: girls/women vaccinated with Gardasil are much less likely to develop cervical cancer as compared with those who are not vaccinated.
As I have mentioned before, all approved and marketed drugs have side effects and possible safety/tolerability issues. More importantly, the decision to approve a particular drug is always based on a careful risks/benefits assessment by government healthcare regulators. Whether or not a person uses a drug or vaccine is ultimately a personal choice. With the exception of mandatory childhood vaccines (children can be exempted for moral or religious reasons), every American has the right to decide whether or not to use a medication or undergo a treatment recommend by a healthcare professional. Based on everything that I have read about Gardasil, it appears to be a safe and effective vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. When FDA finally approves Cervarix (probably sometime in late 2009), it will offer women who may have concerns about Gardasil with an alternate vaccine to protect them against developing cervical cancer.
The funny thing about the Gardasil firestorm is that cervical cancer isn’t a major healthcare problem in the US. This is because a majority of American women undergo annual routine gynecological examinations (that include pap smears, the current gold standard for cervical cancer detection). In contrast, cervical cancer is a major healthcare problem and economic concern in Asia, most notably in China and India. This begs the question—why are Merck and GSK so intent on selling their cervical cancer vaccines in the US? Put simply, there is still much more money to be made in the US than in Asia. Look for approval of Gardasil and Cervarix in China and India when the middle class of both countries reach a critical mass.
Novartis announced today that it will open a new research facility and hire an additional 150 people by the end of 2009 for a Research Center of Excellence in Virology in Cambridge, MA. That will increase the number of people employed by the company in Cambridge to more than 1,800 workers. Researchers at the new center will study vaccines for HIV/AIDS influenza, cytomegalovirus (CMV) and respiratory syncitial virus (RSV).
The vaccine business once avoided like the plague by most pharma companies, has been growing by leaps and bound over the past five years and is sizzling hot these days. According to analysts, vaccines generated about $16 billion dollars last year. For example, Merck’s anti-human papilloma virus vaccine Gardasil generated $1.5 billion in sales in 2007.
Novartis clearly sees an upside in the vaccine business and is willing to make a wise investment for the future.
Like Roche and Genentech, Sanofi-Aventis was already partnered with Acambis and by purchasing Acambis, Sanofi gains a smallpox vaccine that was contracted by the US government for $425 million. Sanofi is the world’s largest manufacturer of influenza vaccines and last month announced plans to open a $157 million manufacturing facility in France, citing projections that demand for vaccines will double by 2016. In case you didn’t know, vaccines, once the scourge of the pharmaceutical industry, are now the hottest”pharmaceutical” products on the market!
Because of growing demand and lucrative margins for biologics and biotechnology products, many big pharma companies are attempting (through acquisitions and mergers) to quickly enter the biologics and biotechnology markets. These days, small molecules are passé and biotech is the next big thing (where have all the pharma execs been for the past 20 years).
Europe has long wanted to dominate the biotechnology market. This has not been possible because of the US’s large lead in the space. However, all this can change because of a weak dollar and a surging Euro! Rather than attempt to create their own biotechnology companies, large cash-rich, European pharma companies can simply buy profitable US biotechnology companies with strong product pipelines.
I suspect that the weak dollar and failing US economy contributed to Roche’s decision to buy Genentech and Teva to buy Barr Pharmaceuticals last week. I would not be surprised if there are more acquisitions of American biotechnology and pharma companies in the very near future. I think that it may be time for Amgen and Bristol-Myers Squibb employees to begin to brush up on their French or German.
Until next time….
Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (in Europe)!!!!!!!!
Flu season is upon us and, not surprisingly, there is no dearth of information available to the public about the seasonal and H1N1 flu vaccines. Mostly there are stories about the lack of availability of the vaccines, underreporting of deaths associated from H1N1 infections and perhaps, most importantly concerns about flu vaccine safety. Despite attempts by the CDC and a few dedicated virologists like BioCrowd co-founder Vincent Racaniello, flu vaccine manufacturing is an enigma to the lay public.
There was an interesting article in the New York Times this past week entitled“Do Women Need Such Big Flu Shot.” The gist of the article was that we would have more doses of influenza 2009 H1N1 vaccine if we accounted for the biological differences between the immune responses in men and women follow influenza vaccination (the article cites a study that contends that less vaccine is need to elicit an protective response in women as compared with men.
Late last week, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) .jpg)
Without fanfare, 
The Belgian chemical manufacturer Solvay 
.jpg)
Professor Vincent Racaniello, a BioCrowd co-founder and virologist who studies the pathogenesis of polio and influenza viruses commented that there will likely be two influenza vaccines offered this fall: a trivalent vaccine consisting of seasonal H3N2 and H1N1 strains and an influenza B strain; and a monovalent one consisting of the 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain..jpg)
Yesterday, .gif)
A quick perusal of the media coverage of the swine flu outbreak of 2009 would lead many to conclude that this outbreak has the potential to rival or surpass the 1918 flu pandemic—widely regarded as the worst influenza outbreak in history. While the emergence of a new H1N1 swine flu variant is significant note worthy— and has possible public health implications— the unrelenting, often scientifically-inaccurate media coverage did little to quell the fear and anxiety of many Americans. Once again, the media—rather than physicians, public health officials and influenza experts—“got out in front of the story” and managed to create enough panic, fear and anxiety, the likes of which haven't been seen since the 2003 SARS pandemic. It wasn't until last Friday, when the Wall Street Journal published an interview with Dr. Peter Palese—a leading scientific expert on influenza A infections— did a clearer picture emerge about the severity and public health implications of the current swine flu pandemic..jpg)
Earlier this week, 
