Catching up, after vacation

October 9, 2009 – 5:29 pm

Now that I’m back in the office from my Boston vacation (and a very interesting visit last Monday with Jeff Porter, Tim Wright, and Mark Fishman of Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, which I will be writing about in January’s R&D Directions), I have some stuff to catch up on. Abbott is buying Solvay’s pharmaceutical business for $6.6 billion. Allergan is suing the government for restricting the company’s right to share clinical information about Botox for certain off-label therapeutic uses. IMS Health predicted 4% to 6% global pharmaceutical market growth in 2010, and 4% to 7% growth through 2013. GlaxoSmithKline won a dispute with the U.S. Patent and Trade Office over regulations that would have restricted drug marketers’ from filing repeated patents to extend the life of their drugs. Three out of 10 orthopedic surgeons failed to disclose financial arrangements they had with medical device makers. And Sen. Al Franken once again raises the specter of ending the tax exemption for drug promotion (it’s the bill that won’t die, ever).

Around and about …

Sally Church at the Pharma Strategy Blog breaks the news that Pfizer has suspended its Phase III trial for figitumumab in nonsmall lung cancer. (The news was confirmed by CNBC’s Mike Huckman and Forbes’ Matthew Herper.)

Marissa Anne Del Mauro at the Health Law Prof blog examines the claims of Allergan’s suit against the government. “What the manufacturer of Botox wants to achieve is the ability for drug manufacturers to once again promote drugs while there is scientific uncertainty over their safety and effectiveness,” Ms. Del Mauro says. “While the debate starts over this question, it will be prudent to recall the lessons taught by the Thalidomide case which occurred prior to the 1962 Drug Amendments and involved the distribution of drug to thousands of patients by doctors while there was still scientific uncertainty over its safety …”

Thomas Sullivan at Policy and Medicine also examines the Allergan suit, but from the CME perspective. “If Allergen’s case is upheld, companies may be less inclined to support CME the only current option for supporting off label discussions,” he says. “They will also be able to bypass the traditional educational program to discuss off-label therapeutic uses of medicine, and directly market such uses through salesmen and promotional meetings. While the science may be accurate and truthful, doctors will still need the necessary exposure to clinical research and studies through CME programs that bring fair balance to make the right decision for patients.”

Mr. Sullivan also comments on what’s coming up at the American Medical Association’s interim meeting; specifically, the Council of Judicial and Ethical Affairs’ report on financial relationships with pharma in CME. “The report appears to be yet another attempt by CEJA to restrict speakers and CME funding,” Mr. Sullivan says.

Arnold I. Friede writes at the IgniteBlog how the Competitive Enterprise Institute believes that DDMAC’s Internet stance could increase consumer risk. “Defenders of this ‘one-click’ approach say that the initial Internet ad is not the end but rather the starting point for an Internet user’s search for information,” Mr. Friede says. No doubt this stance will be reiterated at FDA’s hearing in November on the pharmaceutical industry’s use of social media and the Internet.

John Mack at the Pharma Marketing Blog disagrees with CEI. In doing a search experiment, he found that 72% of his search results, paid and unpaid, led him to trusted health information. “CEI should not try and scare people by implying that FDA’s policies are harming public health!” he scolded.

Steve Woodruff at Impactiviti examines those dreaded vendor capabilities presentations. “What I have seen is that, quite often, expectations are not clearly spelled out – so vendors are left to guess (a bit too much, usually) about what they should be presenting,” he says. “I’m going to put the onus to improve this situation mainly on the client side; but vendors should not be shy about trying to lay the groundwork upfront as well.” (Personally, I believe the language vendors use to try and bedazzle their clients needs to go; phrases and buzzwords such as “utilizing our core competencies” and “aligning structures” and “stakeholders” etc. If you sound like anyone here, no wonder why the clients and the vendors are uncertain about what each actually wants.)

Ellen Hoenig Carlson from AdvanceMarketWorx’s Notes from the Back of the Book says pharma marketers should say no to more bullets in their presentations. I know my heart sinks when Powerpoint slides go up that look like the outline for a college term paper, with complicated charts in too-small type.

Dr. Daniel Carlat at the Carlat Psychiatry Blog is very critical of CVS Caremark’s promotion of Cymbalta on behalf of Eli Lilly and Co. He also agrees with The Boston Globe that there should be a ban on pharma hired guns.

If you haven’t checked out Jonathan Richman at Dose of Digital, you should. He’s spent some time talking about how marketing with meaning can save pharma; here’s part 1, part 2, and part 3.

Dr. Roy M. Poses at Healthcare Renewal points out some bad behavior by Pfizer subsidiary Pharmacia.

Peter Pitts at DrugWonks wonders why the current version of the healthcare reform bill’s $245 billion in Medicare payments for doctors isn’t included in the Congressional Budget Office’s scoring of the bill. He also says Sen. Byron Dorgen should become familiar with brandjacking.

At GlaxoSmithKline’s More than Medicine blog, Michael M tours the company’s vaccine plant in Marietta, Pa., with a group of mommy bloggers, and the company succeeds in getting a better image of itself out.

From Jim Edwards at Bnet: Ed Silverman is relaunching his blog Pharmalot next week. (That cheering you hear is all of the pharma industry observers who desperately missed him.)

And speaking of the Pharmalot relaunch, here is the first entry. Check out all the comments. Mr. Silverman also looks at how the FDA warnings chilled the sponsored link ads; and comments on The Wall Street Journal’s story on how the U.S. Army and Thai researchers may have spokes too soon about the AIDS vaccine study results.

Mr. Edwards also describes what the bosses of AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Schering-Plough didn’t say during a healthcare roundtable; AstraZeneca’s fuzzy Seroquel math; and the continuing madness at Sequenom as the new CEO and R&D chief are given a pay raise.

Also Bnet, Trista Morrison asks Allergan and the rest of the drug industry, “Are you sure you want off-label drug promotion protected under freedom of speech?” “A lot of drug companies will probably come up with reasons to rally behind Allergan’s cause, but would allowing off-label promotion really serve the public good?” she says. “After all, pharma has not proven particularly ethical or good about policing themselves in the sales and marketing department.”

Lena Chow at City of Paris gives some healthcare updates from China. These include new regulations that allow doctors to practice at multiple locations; pay-for-performance and other cost-control measures; and a conference on traditional Chinese medicine.

Mike Huckman of CNBC, who blogs at Pharma’s Market, comments on the IMS Health pharma market forecast. He notes that Lazard Capital Markets’ analyst Tom Gallucci raised his price target on McKesson’s stock by $10, to $68, “specifically because of the IMS report.” He also picks up on IMS’ statement that China will provide strong pharma industry growth over the next few years. “The major pharmaceutical companies these days love to talk about how they’re busy increasing their footprint in China,” Mr. Huckman says. “I’d bet each one would tell you they’ve got the biggest head start or the best master plan to capitalize on that market. Zhu ni hao yun.” Mr. Huckman, is that Mandarin for, “And I have a bridge to sell you?” Update: Actually, it means “Good luck with that,” according to CNBC’s Melissa Lee.

Rich Meyer at World of DTC Marketing has an open letter to the FDA about the upcoming hearings in November on social media. “Having an open forum on social media is a good idea except for one very important aspect,” he says. “The information that you collect could be outdated by the time you issue guidelines and you really need to learn that consumers don’t trust pharma advertising/marketing anymore. You would be better served to first learn how consumers are getting healthcare information today and how they are using it to determine health treatments.”

Mr. Meyer also opines that paid search is a waste of money and that it’s important to understand why consumers search for health information (Make sure you read the comments Mr. Richman from Dose of Digital on Mr. Meyer’s paid search opinions, it’s a lively debate.)

At the R&D Directions Insider Blog, Michael Christel looks at the 50-year drought in lupus drug research; and Colette Pilkus spotlights some advances in breast cancer research.