According to new figures from Nielsen

A treatment for Alzheimer’s disease is the drug industry’s longest shot, and any brave investors willing to place a bet on the outcome are likely to focus on Eli Lilly & Co.

Lilly and Pfizer Inc are the farthest along in developing experimental medicines for the memory-robbing disease. But Lilly, as the far smaller company, has much more upside for its share price if it hits pay dirt.

A Surescripts analysis suggests that the increase in first-fill medication adherence combined with other e-prescribing benefits could, over the next 10 years, lead to between $140 billion and $240 billion in health care savings and improved health outcomes.

The data showed a consistent 10 percent increase in patient first-fill medication adherence (i.e., new prescriptions that were picked up by the patient) among physicians who adopted e-prescribing technology when compared with physicians who did not use e-prescribing. Physicians who adopted e-prescribing used the technology to route up to 40 percent of their prescriptions electronically during the time of the study, and Surescripts estimates that first-fill medication adherence rates will continue to improve as e-prescribing adoption and usage increase.

 Family medicine docs and internists – were asked about their views on prescribing lower-cost copycat meds, in general. Not surprisingly, 64 percent reported they were somewhat likely to switch to a generic within six months of availability. And 82 percent would do so within the first nine months.

At the same time, though, 65 percent reported that they have experienced a failure with a generic equivalent where the brand-name drug was successful. And 94 percent reported that their own patients had indicated a generic did not work as well as the branded drug they were taking previously, according to DoctorDirectory, a firm that specializes in brand-name marketing.

The news that Dendreon is under new management should cheer investors and help lay the groundwork for figuring out how to best sell the company’s groundbreaking prostate cancer treatment, Provenge, which aims to harness the immune system to fight tumors.

The move signals a recognition that Dendreon may need to make significant changes in its strategy for marketing Provenge, a treatment that involves removing a patient’s immune cells from the blood, treating them, and re-injecting them in a costly, $93,000 procedure.

The world’s major pharmaceutical companies joined forces with governments and leading global health organizations Monday to donate drugs and scientific know-how to help control or wipe out 10 neglected tropical diseases by 2020.  In a project expected to affect the lives of a billion people worldwide, the partnership pledged more than $785 million to support NTD research and development (R&D) and strengthen drug distribution and treatment programs.

Opt Ed: Is Big Pharma an oxymoron now ?

The news this weel that AZ is going to lay off 7,300 people worldwide should not be a shock to anyone within an industry loosing patent protection on some big selling drugs.   Yet there are irresponsible journalists who still feel that drug companies don’t have a right to make a profit with expensive drugs.

To really understand what’s happening you have to understand that the medical community is learning more everyday what causes certain diseases and how to fight them.  The key challenge is that it costs a lot of money to develop micro compounds that can attack disease like cancer.  This money is being used in R&D even before drug applications get submitted for approval but unfortunately the patent clock continues to tick while drugs are in development.

This blogger has called on the government to grant patent protection once a drug is approved by the FDA not when work is still in progress.  By doing this drug companies will have time to recoup their investments and drug prices could be lower as a result.

The other challenge is that pharma companies have to learn to be faster and better at what they do.  This means smaller companies that can react to opportunities within the market but it also means that pharma cannot continue to layoff people when a drug comes off patent.  That is going to lead to a substantial drain of talent at a time when pharma needs innovators and Linchpins.

The piece called “How Drug Companies Game the System” talk about the money the drug industry has used to lobby government officials.  There are few industries with as much power in Washington as the pharmaceutical sector. Drug companies have spent $2.3 billion on lobbying and $183 million on campaign contributions since 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The industry also maintains a war chest for advertising and grassroots lobbying aimed at altering public opinion. The ready money serves as a strong deterrent against any legislative proposal that would lower costs for consumers and profits for the drug makers.

He goes onto to suggest that seniors are making life choice decisions between their prescription drugs and basic necessities but he fails to talk about the programs of free drugs that most drug companies have for people who cannot afford their drugs.

According to a 2010 Kaiser Family Foundation study, drug prescriptions rose by 39 percent while drug prices nearly doubled over the last decade. More and more individuals, hard pressed to pay for medications, are opting to abandon their prescriptions. In 2009, the number of patients who did not fill or pick up prescriptions increased by 23 percent from the previous year and 68 percent from 2006.

He also fails to mention that most prescription drugs are now available in generic form or will be available in generic form within 3-5 years.     The other issue he makes is that drug prices are rising while the drug industry thrives.  Perhaps he is not aware that it costs over $1 billion to develop and launch new drugs and that only one out of every 8 or 9 drugs ever make it market ?  It costs a lot more to develop drugs because drug companies are innovating more and learning more about how to fight the deadly diseases that take such a huge toll on our society.

As for drug companies doing well maybe he should look at the 50 or 60 thousand people who have been laid off from the drug industry because of changes in healthcare law and drugs coming off patent.   He goes on to recommend that seniors be allowed to purchase Rx drugs from Canada which is both risky and dangerous for people who are taken in by bogus pharmacies across the border.

A lot of people are so angry that pharma companies are making money that they fail to recognize the great medical advances they have helped discover in the past century. A diagnosis of AIDs for example is no longer an automatic death sentence and people the death rates from cancer are declining because, in part, of Rx drugs.

Look the pharma industry has a lot of skeletons in their closets and they should be punished for illegal marketing that endangers patients but too often we are too quick to point out what they have done wrong as what they are doing right. This article is a piece of garbage and is grossly unfair to an industry that has a lot of good people who care about people working for it.

Astra Zeneca is headed for the patent cliff.  Patents on Seroquel and Nexium are scheduled to expire between now and 2015, while Crestor will lose exclusivity in the US in 2016.

Quarterly sales of Crestor jumped 12 percent to $1.8 billion, compared with the year-ago period, driven by strong US growth, while annual revenue from the drug grew 16 percent to $6.6 billion. Seroquel rose 15 percent  to $1.5 billion in the fourth quarter, and increased 8 percent for the full year to $5.8 billion. Nexium sales fell 13 percent to $1.1 billion, as the product’s 12-month revenue dropped 11 percent to $4.4 billion, while sales of Symbicort in the fourth quarter rose 13 percent to $839 million, and revenue increased for the year by 15 percent to $3.1 billion compared to 2010.

This move is shortsighted..

The easiest way to hit profit targets is to cut expenses. Trouble is, many of the expenses that CEO’s most frequently cut including R&D and marketing are expenses only under accounting rules; they’re actually investments that pay off later. Unfortunately for those CEO’s, investors aren’t as clueless as they think. Research shows that markets whack the stocks of companies that cut today’s costs in ways that hurt tomorrow’s performance.

So the cuts continue at “big pharma” and once again you have to wonder who in their right mind would seek a career in pharma and where is new talent going to come from ?   Right now the downside to building a blockbuster is that when it comes off patent there are sure to be major consequences such as layoffs.

Saying you’re going to invest more in R&D while cutting people is talking outside both sides of your mouth and I am sure employees at AZ are asking “what is going on here”?  But remember the CEO still takes home his huge paycheck..

For Pharmaceutical companies, social media offers opportunities to communicate with patients, care givers, prescribers and other stakeholders. This deep and wide access may prove invaluable considering the current focus on ‘patient choice’. The ability to shape decision making and to maintain top-of-mind awareness can help potential clients to differentiate between them and their competitors.

Cegedim tabulated how the top 100 companies (based on promotional spending) rank in terms of their global social media exposure (likes, posts, tweets and followers) on two of the most important social network websites: Facebook and Twitter.

Among the top 100 spenders in pharmaceuticals Pfizer, the largest globally, ranks 6th in terms of the number of pages in Facebook. This puts them behind Merck, Proctor and Gamble and Danone (companies which also have pages targeted at consumers); Novartis and Bayer. Pfizer also takes 3rd position in terms of ‘likes’ behind Nestle and Johnson and Johnson.

It is also surprising to see Lilly so far behind in the rankings: Lilly is number 7 in promotional spending but ranks 23rd in the number of pages and 32nd in terms of ‘likes’. This may be critical since pharmaceutical companies can identify what their stakeholders are looking for in terms of information thanks to ‘likes’.

So why is this happening ?

(1) Pharma companies tend to be more risk adverse and don’t understand how to leverage social media within the organization yet.

(2) The issue of “who” will be in charge of social media for drug companies comes into play.

(3) Pharma companies don’t get a cup of coffee without doing an ROI analysis yet in social media you cannot put an ROI analysis around every conversation.

(4) The FDA has not issues clear and concise social media marketing directions thus legal and regulatory are saying “nay and get out of there”.

The bottom line ?

Consumers and patients are moving on without pharma being part of the conversation.  DTC marketing has not evolved to marketing with people and is still marketing at people.   Unless things change DTC marketing is going to become more and more irrelevant and the talented marketers are going to look elsewhere for opportunities in social media marketing.

For more information about CSD’s secondary data and market research capabilities, please contact Aude Chemin at aude.chemin@cegedim.com or 201-914-1001.

A spokeswoman for the Komen foundation said that the main factor in the decision to withhold money was because of a new rule adopted by Komen that prohibits grants to organizations being investigated by local, state or federal authorities.  Planned Parenthood was therefore disqualified from financing because of an inquiry being conducted by Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, who is looking at how Planned Parenthood spends and reports its money.  In others words they are bowing to political pressure and put politics ahead of women’s health.

“Until really recently, the Komen foundation had been praising our breast health programs as essential this really abrupt about-face was very surprising. I think that the Komen foundation has been bullied by right-wing groups” said a spokesperson.

Regardless of the real reason the end result is that more women are going to be put in danger of breast cancer and as a result more women are probably going to loose the battle with breast cancer.  The Komen foundation should be ashamed of itself.  It could have just as easily specified that the dollars they donated be used for only mammagrams but they have proved that they are indeed a political organization that values politics over people.

Related articles

• Susan G. Komen For The Cure To Planned Parenthood: You’re Dead To Us (markedwardsrants.wordpress.com)
• Furor Erupts Over Susan G. Komen Halt Of Grants To Planned Parenthood – NPR (blog) (npr.org)
• Planned Parenthood “Alarmed and Saddened” by Komen Foundation Succumbing to Political Pressure (yubanet.com)
• Breast Cancer Charity Ends Planned Parenthood Grants (foxnews.com)
• Susan B. Komen Foundation Cuts Planned Parenthood Funding (thehollywoodgossip.com)

Adverse Events

Adverse Events is powered by RxFilter™ and provides critical drug safety and outcome information on all FDA approved medications. Consumers can use AdverseEvents to stay informed, identify trends, and make critical drug safety decisions.   Of course one has to wonder if consumers should be making those decisions without input from a HCP ?

User Experience

Once you arrive at the home page you enter the name of your Rx drug where you then get a summary page of reported drug side effects and adverse events.  In order to get deeper in reported information however users have to register and research has clearly shown that a lot of people tend to shy away from sites that require user registrations and paying up to $249 a year for professional membership and $99 a year for consumers.

My personal feeling is that the concept is nice but the user experience leaves a lot to be desired for consumers and frankly I can’t see consumers forking over $99 a year for health information that is available free via the FDA website.  I also don’t believe that HCP’s are going to want to add another expense to their online needs.

The “Recent News” about drugs and side effects also is just a news aggregator with a lot of headlines that are sure to confuse consumers.  Overall I grade this website a “C”.

Clarimed 

The other websites positioning is “health information made easy” and is called Clarimed.   I have no idea what Clarimed is trying to be or who they are trying to target but the user experience is horrible and searching for health information is often confusing and time consuming.

Clarimed intends to bring transparency and openness to the presently opaque healthcare and especially the medical device industry by providing fact-based insights into product quality and performance to help patients, providers, payors, manufacturers and others make informed decisions but I believe it will just bring more confusion and information overload to patients.

What’s Missing ?

There is no shortage of health information via the Internet.  What is missing is clear and easy to understand health information that educates as well as informs. This means that content has to written with the target audience in mind and you need to better understand what they need, how they need it and when they need it.  Both of these website fail at this.

Last year during a LOT of research (and M&M’s) we consistently heard that the gaps in online health information was content that was easy to understand combined with a user experience that above expectations.  Anyone can surf thousands of information sources for health information but finding information that they can understand and is relevant to them is a major disconnect for most consumers.

Web MD, in my research with consumers, tested poorly in usability with most consumers feeling lost once they enter the site.   These sites seem to do a better job but not by much.

In addition the medical community should be concerned that patients are making healthcare choices based on online information without consulting them therefore potentially making a medical condition more chronic and leading to worse patient outcomes and higher costs.

It’s not going to be easy to develop a health site that can do all this and what is needed is a focus on users first and content that they are willing to pay for and helps them make decision without having to spend hours reading content and looking fo better information.

Related articles

• Pradaxa case study on DTC marketing moratorium (worldofdtcmarketing.com)
• Why Web MD is in trouble and how to fix it (worldofdtcmarketing.com)
• Survey: DTC not effective in majority of consumers (worldofdtcmarketing.com)
• Can I get some help with all this health information ? (worldofdtcmarketing.com)
• The conversion path to an Rx is rarely a straight line (worldofdtcmarketing.com)

This weekend there was a small story that Ms Deen was caught eating a cheeseburger and fries on a cruise ship.   Not that anyone can’t eat a cheeseburger once in awhile but Ms Deen, whether she likes it or not, is in the spotlight and the message she seems to be sending is “go ahead, eat what you want as long as you have your prescription drugs to compensate”.  Obviously this is the WRONG message to send to diabetics and people who live unhealthy lifestyles.

Ms Deen is already associated with diabetes on social media

The only way we are going to get out of the diabetes epidemic is if Americans are educated on the relationship between obesity and Type 2 diabetes.  This means that a lot more education needs to be done but more importantly it also means that we need to warn people that diabetes is NOT to be taken lightly as a “condition” that can be treated with drugs so you can eat that last slice of cake.

Endorsement can provide a great deal of ROI for brands but this move by Novo has me scratching my head and asking “who in their right minds would have made such a bad decision?”

 The problem with Paula Deen is that, after being diagnosed with diabetes—after being handed a big, flashing “Atone for your lard-soaked ways” sign by god—she chose not to humbly receive the message, in her nice little down home Southern Jesus-respecting way, and set about trying to change for the better, and perhaps to convince some of her acolytes to stop killing themselves the same way. Maybe become a vegetarian. Save a cow while you’re at it. No. Instead, she decided to accept a shitload of money to endorse a diabetes drug. She managed to find a way to eschew responsibility for the damage she’s done as much as possible, while also making money for herself. She managed to send the message: Continue eating my special fried bacon mashed potatoes, likely obese Americans. You can always shove some Victoza™ brand non-insulin injectible medication into your clogged veins when your body starts to rebel. Food is your drug, and when it starts to kill you for real, well, there are always… drugs.

As pharmaceutical companies have sought ways to reduce promotion costs, sampling has followed suit. In the US market, the total spending of the industry on samples has fallen 25% since 2007. While total sample volume has dropped samples dropped off or delivered without a sales detail have declined at a much lower rate than samples that were part of a sales detail.

Declines in detail-associated sample drops are driven in large part by declines in detailing itself. As companies reduced the size of their sales forces, the number of sales details have been driven down and, with it, the number of details which include a sample drop-off.

The estimated total sales force size for our entire industry has declined by 13% between 2011 Q3 MAT and just four years prior. Over this same period, the number of details with sample deliveries has declined by 36%. While some therapeutic areas do buck the trend, others show the proportional decline running almost in parallel. For example, in the Antacid/GERD market the sales force size for the 2011 Q3 MAT declined by 67% compared to four years earlier while detail-associated samples fell 78%…as shown below.

A different view of the data reveals that while total details have declined sharply in recent years, the proportion in which samples are distributed has fallen by 6% over the last 4 years to only 29% of total details. Thus, while reductions in manpower are a strong factor in reduced sampling, the cutbacks go beyond that alone. Out of the ten leading companies for detailing in the US, all but one have reduced the proportion of details with samples over the last four years, and three fall below the national average in 2011: Pfizer, Novartis, and AstraZeneca at 28%, 28%, and 23% respectively.

So how does this trend appear to impact prescription behavior? At first glance, the effect appears to be minimal. Using ‘future intent to prescribe’ as a measure for the impact of the call, there appears to be no difference as physicians receiving details with and without samples reportedly will increase future Rx at nearly the same rate. Nor is there any obvious correlation among the top ten companies (based on detailing) between detailed samples and frequency of intent to increase Rx. However, a closer look at just those physicians who have never prescribed the detailed product shows a marked advantage for products which details which did leave a sample: 82% versus 51% in 2011 as shown below. It is interesting to observe that this trend increases over the same period that overall detailed samples drop off.

Source:

Type 1 diabetes — the autoimmune disease

Use of antidepressant drugs has soared nearly 400% since 1988, making the medication the most frequently used by people ages 18-44, a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows.

Anti-depressant use in the u.s. has jumped almost 400% in the last three-year period because it’s easier to treat the condition rather than the patient and patients want an instant fix in today’s time stressed environment.

Grief would be labeled a mental disorder under a proposed change in the diagnostic mark manual for the American Psychiatric Association so clinicians can consider the possibility of whether to treat a major depression in someone who’s recently bereaved.

Many fear the new label would lead to a dramatic increase in the use of anti-depressants, already taken by 1-10 americans, an $11 billion a year business as if you classify grief as a disorder, it becomes a target for treatment and for especially medication.

Grieving is part of life and I am sure that there are different levels of grief but the argument can be made that too many Americans are already on antidepressants and that classifying grief as a “mental disorder” could lead to expanded label indications for Rx medications.

Less than one-third of Americans taking one antidepressant and less than one-half of those taking multiple antidepressants have seen a mental-health professional in the past year.

We all want “instant fixes” for health problems but sooner or later someone has to have to the courage to say that there are no magic pills for certain types of health problems.   It starts with professional counseling and or lifestyle changes and not everything comes in a prescription bottle.

Related articles

• Antidepressant Use Skyrocketed in Past 20 Years (cherished79.wordpress.com)
• Grief will become just another form of depression: another billable disorder for the DSM5 (kenyatta2009.wordpress.com)
• Will Depression Include Normal Grieving Too? (psychcentral.com)
• Over use of anti-depressants ? (worldofdtcmarketing.com)
• Use of Antidepressants on the Rise in the U.S. (webmd.com)