Drumroll...

At a time when R&D is more important than ever in Big Pharma, it's hard to believe that at the end of the day, there is one person behind it at each company. I think this could possibly be the most difficult job to have within Pharma. Can you imagine the pressure? Merck spent over $50 billion in six years and of that only 5 products were approved!

If you get a chance, take a look at the metric breakdown of 5 big pharmaceutical companies and the amount invested in R&D. Elliot Sigel of Bristol-Meyer came out on top for smartest spending putting $28 billion into R&D and having 7 new products approved in that six year time frame. Product pipeline can make it or break it, hence why the R&D chief could be the most powerful person while having the most complicated job in the entire company.







Check this out at WSJ.com!
The Best R&D Chief in Pharma World

What's in a Name?

Apparently, X and Z are the trendiest new letters in drug names. There are some crazy names out there and it really makes you wonder, "How do they come up with these?"  I know this is a question many doctors ask themselves, as they are responsible to for learning not only the names, but being able to link it to the proper disease state, indications and safety information.

It's the job of pharmaceutical consultants to create a name that isn't already taken or will lead to medical mix-ups because of other products on the market with similar sounding names.  Finding a unique name can be very difficult when there are more than 30,000 trademarked prescription drugs in the United States alone and 150,000 in Europe.  The people in marketing spend more time and money in focus groups and market research than one could imagine to come up with a name such as Pfizer's Xeljanz. Then, once they have found suitable options, it must pass regulatory approval. It's like a never ending game of Scrabble! 10 points for the letter Z!

This article talked about recent studies showing drug names starting with X and Z are more memorable and evoke some positive relationship with doctors or patients, which led me to consider what does make a good name? I started searching the web as I was curious to learn more and happened to come across a second article from USA Today referencing William Trombetta, who happens to be a past professor of mine from the pharmaceutical marketing program at St. Joseph's University, what are the odds!

Dr. Trombetta states: "A lot of it is more art than science. There are certain letters that express power and control, like Z, M or P. Other letters, like S, are more passive. Depending on what the drug does, you want to give the name certain features."

It also mentioned the X's and Z's are "high-tech" triggers. That article was written in 2007.  Fast forward six years to 2013 and what once seemed high-tech is now commonplace and the most popular names seeking approval or launch currently. I wonder what would be considered a high-tech trigger letter today? 

Read more at Fierce Pharma: Xs and Zs become popular in drug names 

Click here for: USA Today Article

Off-Label Marketing

As a pharma rep who has been through several sales product trainings, off-label marketing is a big no-no! It can cause a great deal of trouble for the company and employee, resulting in major lawsuits and expenses.   Although the pharmaceutical industry does self-govern via PhRMA, setting industry standards and guidelines to uphold, it does not mean everyone follows them.  Unfortunately, off-label marketing probably happens more often than I'd like to admit as a member of the industry.

Well in a recent case, U.S. v. Caronia, the court has called one pharma rep's off-label marketing a form of protected speech. Touche. This left legal experts and the FDA in search of SOME kind of response, but unfortunately they came up short.  The FDA did respond saying it "does not believe that the Caronia decision wil significantly affect the agency's enforcement of the drug misbranding provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FiercePharma)." This makes sense, as one trial in a specific region is probably not enough, drugs are marketed on a global level, through many different channels.

So one way to look at this is that another off-label-promotion-is-free-speech claim is making its way through the courts.  This isn't "new" news. There may not have been an FDA appeal this time, but I guarantee it is not the last we hear of it.

Read more: FDA won't appeal free-speech ruling on off-label marketing - FiercePharma 

Novartis CEO- Not Just Pushing a Pill

And another rep bites the dust. Novartis just completed it's 4th major layoff in the last two years, all under new CEO Joseph Jimenez. Novartis is going through the same challenges many other pharmaceutical companies are facing. Losing patent protection to a cash cow, a product that keeps the lights on at HQ, and pays for new product launches is a difficult transition, especially when there isn't anything promising in the pipeline.

If you take a look at the video embedded in the link below, Jimenez offers his outlook on sales strategy. These days it goes far beyond the pill itself, and focuses more on selling effectiveness, and finding the opportunities for growth and global expansion.

He is a big believer that the industry needs to spend less money on sales and marketing and more on research and development, which I think is something almost everyone in industry can agree on. Right now big pharma companies are battling bids on small start-ups with promise.

He also alludes to Novartis and many other companies moving away from physically selling products to companies being paid on positive patient outcomes. This is an interesting concept, that I think we will be hearing more about in the near future and I'm sure I will be blogging on the subject again!




Check out this article here at WSJ.com.  There is a great video link that I reference.
At Novartis, The Pill is Just Part of the Pitch

United Health Weighs In...

United Health is just one of the many insurance companies affected by Health Care Reform.  As a professional in the pharmaceutical industry, agreements with insurers are critical to getting branded products on plans leading to widespread patient use.  There has been a great deal of buildup regarding this topic and now that it is to become a reality, insurers, such as United Health, are taking the necessary precautions and planning ahead for a new market landscape with great uncertainty. 

I was interested to learn that they will be focusing in on limited markets.  Only taking on 10-25 in an arena of 100 or more, is a major cut back.  Of course this will vary by state, but I think we are likely to see more individual plans, which means more exchanges depending on the level of interest on local levels.  One major concern as mentioned in the article is that this could push up premiums, which could deter many people.

Well, there is still much to unfold as other insurance companies weigh in between now and the fall and legislation gets ready to take full effect in 2014.  I'm sure we will hear plenty more on this topic to come, so stay tuned!

Check out article here at WSJ.com: 
United Health Weighs In