DrugWonks on Twitter
Tweets by @PeterPittsDrugWonks on Facebook
CMPI Videos
Video Montage of Third Annual Odyssey Awards Gala Featuring Governor Mitch Daniels, Montel Williams, Dr. Paul Offit and CMPI president Peter Pitts
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels
Montel Williams, Emmy Award-Winning Talk Show Host
Paul Offit, M.D., Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and the Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, for Leadership in Transformational Medicine
CMPI president Peter J. Pitts
CMPI Web Video: "Science or Celebrity"
Tabloid Medicine
Check Out CMPI's Book
Physician Disempowerment:
A Transatlantic Malaise
Edited By: Peter J. Pitts
Download the E-Book Version Here
A Transatlantic Malaise
Edited By: Peter J. Pitts
Download the E-Book Version Here
CMPI Events
Donate
CMPI Reports
Blog Roll
Alliance for Patient Access
Alternative Health Practice
AHRP
Better Health
BigGovHealth
Biotech Blog
BrandweekNRX
CA Medicine man
Cafe Pharma
Campaign for Modern Medicines
Carlat Psychiatry Blog
Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look
Conservative's Forum
Club For Growth
CNEhealth.org
Diabetes Mine
Disruptive Women
Doctors For Patient Care
Dr. Gov
Drug Channels
DTC Perspectives
eDrugSearch
Envisioning 2.0
EyeOnFDA
FDA Law Blog
Fierce Pharma
fightingdiseases.org
Fresh Air Fund
Furious Seasons
Gooznews
Gel Health News
Hands Off My Health
Health Business Blog
Health Care BS
Health Care for All
Healthy Skepticism
Hooked: Ethics, Medicine, and Pharma
Hugh Hewitt
IgniteBlog
In the Pipeline
In Vivo
Instapundit
Internet Drug News
Jaz'd Healthcare
Jaz'd Pharmaceutical Industry
Jim Edwards' NRx
Kaus Files
KevinMD
Laffer Health Care Report
Little Green Footballs
Med Buzz
Media Research Center
Medrants
More than Medicine
National Review
Neuroethics & Law
Newsbusters
Nurses For Reform
Nurses For Reform Blog
Opinion Journal
Orange Book
PAL
Peter Rost
Pharm Aid
Pharma Blog Review
Pharma Blogsphere
Pharma Marketing Blog
Pharmablogger
Pharmacology Corner
Pharmagossip
Pharmamotion
Pharmalot
Pharmaceutical Business Review
Piper Report
Polipundit
Powerline
Prescription for a Cure
Public Plan Facts
Quackwatch
Real Clear Politics
Remedyhealthcare
Shark Report
Shearlings Got Plowed
StateHouseCall.org
Taking Back America
Terra Sigillata
The Cycle
The Catalyst
The Lonely Conservative
TortsProf
Town Hall
Washington Monthly
World of DTC Marketing
WSJ Health Blog
AHRP
Better Health
BigGovHealth
Biotech Blog
BrandweekNRX
CA Medicine man
Cafe Pharma
Campaign for Modern Medicines
Carlat Psychiatry Blog
Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look
Conservative's Forum
Club For Growth
CNEhealth.org
Diabetes Mine
Disruptive Women
Doctors For Patient Care
Dr. Gov
Drug Channels
DTC Perspectives
eDrugSearch
Envisioning 2.0
EyeOnFDA
FDA Law Blog
Fierce Pharma
fightingdiseases.org
Fresh Air Fund
Furious Seasons
Gooznews
Gel Health News
Hands Off My Health
Health Business Blog
Health Care BS
Health Care for All
Healthy Skepticism
Hooked: Ethics, Medicine, and Pharma
Hugh Hewitt
IgniteBlog
In the Pipeline
In Vivo
Instapundit
Internet Drug News
Jaz'd Healthcare
Jaz'd Pharmaceutical Industry
Jim Edwards' NRx
Kaus Files
KevinMD
Laffer Health Care Report
Little Green Footballs
Med Buzz
Media Research Center
Medrants
More than Medicine
National Review
Neuroethics & Law
Newsbusters
Nurses For Reform
Nurses For Reform Blog
Opinion Journal
Orange Book
PAL
Peter Rost
Pharm Aid
Pharma Blog Review
Pharma Blogsphere
Pharma Marketing Blog
Pharmablogger
Pharmacology Corner
Pharmagossip
Pharmamotion
Pharmalot
Pharmaceutical Business Review
Piper Report
Polipundit
Powerline
Prescription for a Cure
Public Plan Facts
Quackwatch
Real Clear Politics
Remedyhealthcare
Shark Report
Shearlings Got Plowed
StateHouseCall.org
Taking Back America
Terra Sigillata
The Cycle
The Catalyst
The Lonely Conservative
TortsProf
Town Hall
Washington Monthly
World of DTC Marketing
WSJ Health Blog
DrugWonks Blog
02/14/2007 03:06 PM |
The Kingdom of Norway, one of the world's richest nations (due to oil, not salmon) is rewarding bad behavior. Hans Christian Anderson isn't smiling and neither are many of that nation's best trading partners.
In direct contradiction of the spirit of the TRIPS agreement, the government of King Harald V is apparently unwilling to protect pharmaceutical patents. Now it's one thing when the military junta in Thailand decides to demonstrate jack-boot behavior towards intellectual property rights – it’s quite another when it comes from one of the world's wealthiest countries.
The problem arises from Norway's dual system of patent coverage for pharmaceuticals. Prior to January 1, 1992, Norway granted analogous "process" patent protection that applied only to the manufacturing process for a drug's active ingredient. Though Norway began granting full "product" patents for pharmaceuticals after that date, the great majority of drugs sold in Norway today are still covered by weaker process patents.
Analogous process patents provide much weaker protection than product patents, making branded pharmaceuticals vulnerable to generic "copycat" competition. Generic manufacturers have claimed that they have found alternative methods to produce certain branded products that do not infringe the process patent and are attempting to introduce the copycat drugs into the Norwegian market.
The United States and most European nations provide full product patent protections for pharmaceuticals. European countries where this difficulty once existed have taken remedial measures. Finland, for example, recently took action to rectify an identical weakness in its patent laws respecting pharmaceuticals.
Norway wants the full benefit of international pharmaceutical innovation, but is unwilling to contribute its fair share to global costs of biomedical innovation. This is free-riding of the worst order. And what's worse is that the Kingdom's Jamie Love-like behavior punishes many of its best trading partners (those nations home to innovator pharmaceutical companies) while rewarding countries willing to provide anti-TRIPS drugs (such as India and China).
It's not a complicated proposition. Under TRIPS Article 27, Norway has an obligation to provide protection to “any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application.â€
And Norway has an obligation under TRIPS Article 70.2 to grant enhanced rights to existing subject matter that either is already protected in Norway or which meets the criteria for protection under the provisions of TRIPS. The pharmaceutical products under debate existed and were patentable subject matter on the date that TRIPS first applied in Norway. So, once again, Norway has an obligation to provide patent protection.
Does the government of Norway think that just because they are a major oil producer they can disregard their international agreements in the same fashion the Thai junta treats its international agreements? It's shameful that a First World economy should embrace a Third World philosophy of blatant disregard for intellectual property.
In Norway, if it's war against the patent rights of innovator pharmaceutical firms today, who's next? Read More & Comment...
In direct contradiction of the spirit of the TRIPS agreement, the government of King Harald V is apparently unwilling to protect pharmaceutical patents. Now it's one thing when the military junta in Thailand decides to demonstrate jack-boot behavior towards intellectual property rights – it’s quite another when it comes from one of the world's wealthiest countries.
The problem arises from Norway's dual system of patent coverage for pharmaceuticals. Prior to January 1, 1992, Norway granted analogous "process" patent protection that applied only to the manufacturing process for a drug's active ingredient. Though Norway began granting full "product" patents for pharmaceuticals after that date, the great majority of drugs sold in Norway today are still covered by weaker process patents.
Analogous process patents provide much weaker protection than product patents, making branded pharmaceuticals vulnerable to generic "copycat" competition. Generic manufacturers have claimed that they have found alternative methods to produce certain branded products that do not infringe the process patent and are attempting to introduce the copycat drugs into the Norwegian market.
The United States and most European nations provide full product patent protections for pharmaceuticals. European countries where this difficulty once existed have taken remedial measures. Finland, for example, recently took action to rectify an identical weakness in its patent laws respecting pharmaceuticals.
Norway wants the full benefit of international pharmaceutical innovation, but is unwilling to contribute its fair share to global costs of biomedical innovation. This is free-riding of the worst order. And what's worse is that the Kingdom's Jamie Love-like behavior punishes many of its best trading partners (those nations home to innovator pharmaceutical companies) while rewarding countries willing to provide anti-TRIPS drugs (such as India and China).
It's not a complicated proposition. Under TRIPS Article 27, Norway has an obligation to provide protection to “any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application.â€
And Norway has an obligation under TRIPS Article 70.2 to grant enhanced rights to existing subject matter that either is already protected in Norway or which meets the criteria for protection under the provisions of TRIPS. The pharmaceutical products under debate existed and were patentable subject matter on the date that TRIPS first applied in Norway. So, once again, Norway has an obligation to provide patent protection.
Does the government of Norway think that just because they are a major oil producer they can disregard their international agreements in the same fashion the Thai junta treats its international agreements? It's shameful that a First World economy should embrace a Third World philosophy of blatant disregard for intellectual property.
In Norway, if it's war against the patent rights of innovator pharmaceutical firms today, who's next? Read More & Comment...
02/14/2007 12:32 PM |
Bart Stupak had his little show trial on drug safety yesterday with his sidecar of disgruntled FDA numbers crunchers who see an industry-agency conspiracy behind every adverse event. That includes the increasingly insufferable and self-righteous David Graham who, according to USA Today, "more than two years after (telling) a Senate panel that the Food and Drug Administration was "incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx," the FDA scientist was back on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to tell a House panel that "nothing has really changed." Graham made it sound as if he is the sole repository of truth on whether a drug is safe and indeed claimed that the entire class
Actually, Graham has gotten more hypocritical. Here he is on Vioxx before real scientists at the FDA Advisory Committee hearing on COX-2 safety back in Feb 2005 instead of the self-aggrandizing Stupak:
Dr. Abrahamson: There are data that we have seen that ibuprofen might increase risk. We didn't talk about the McDonald and Way paper that in cardiovascular discharge patients, people give ibuprofen had a higher mortality 2-fold. So, as the smoke clears, I am not sure that the simple answer that the coxibs were different was actually supported by your data, nor
your ultimate explanation. Can you defend that?
Dr. Graham: I think you are accurate. I think what you are saying is fair. Maybe a better thing to say is, in the end, that you do need to look at it drug by drug.
Maybe the better thing is to actually run a balanced hearing instead of phoney three-ring circus that bears no relationship to the science. Read More & Comment...
Actually, Graham has gotten more hypocritical. Here he is on Vioxx before real scientists at the FDA Advisory Committee hearing on COX-2 safety back in Feb 2005 instead of the self-aggrandizing Stupak:
Dr. Abrahamson: There are data that we have seen that ibuprofen might increase risk. We didn't talk about the McDonald and Way paper that in cardiovascular discharge patients, people give ibuprofen had a higher mortality 2-fold. So, as the smoke clears, I am not sure that the simple answer that the coxibs were different was actually supported by your data, nor
your ultimate explanation. Can you defend that?
Dr. Graham: I think you are accurate. I think what you are saying is fair. Maybe a better thing to say is, in the end, that you do need to look at it drug by drug.
Maybe the better thing is to actually run a balanced hearing instead of phoney three-ring circus that bears no relationship to the science. Read More & Comment...
02/14/2007 12:23 PM |
The WSJ has an article about how Mayo and Medco are partnering to screen patients BEFORE they take drugs to avoid side effects but meanwhile it sounds like the FDA is making it hard for such diagostics -- critical to the Critical Path and better health -- to get approved (and funding).
This in turn only gives ammunition and power to the critics of the industry and the agency that molecular medicine is not ready for prime time, that user fees are too user friendly, and that most of the money should go to policing products after they are on the market and not before they are developed or dispensed. All of which means fewer dollars spent on getting people new medicines for lifesaving medicines...
The FDA has a responsibility to get its act together on molecular diagnostics but Congress should understand that to drain the agency from money to advance such discussions and developments and invest in IOM-type idiocy will come at the expense of patient health and safety. Read More & Comment...
This in turn only gives ammunition and power to the critics of the industry and the agency that molecular medicine is not ready for prime time, that user fees are too user friendly, and that most of the money should go to policing products after they are on the market and not before they are developed or dispensed. All of which means fewer dollars spent on getting people new medicines for lifesaving medicines...
The FDA has a responsibility to get its act together on molecular diagnostics but Congress should understand that to drain the agency from money to advance such discussions and developments and invest in IOM-type idiocy will come at the expense of patient health and safety. Read More & Comment...
02/14/2007 11:46 AM |
Marcia Angell claims that Medicare Part D was a giveaway to brand name drug companies and me-too drugs....
According to Business Monitor International..."The US-based Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) has announced that around 60% of all prescriptions on the Part D benefit programme are for generic drugs."
I wonder if Ms. Marcia's fact checking was any better when she was riding the bull at NEJM Read More & Comment...
According to Business Monitor International..."The US-based Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) has announced that around 60% of all prescriptions on the Part D benefit programme are for generic drugs."
I wonder if Ms. Marcia's fact checking was any better when she was riding the bull at NEJM Read More & Comment...
02/14/2007 11:34 AM |
Wikipedia is running out of money. But instead of accepting ads it will pull the plug if it doesn't receive enough donations to keep it going. Which means that the founders will put to sleep the fastest growing common grounds for sharing information around the globe out of principle.
http://www.calacanis.com/2007/02/10/wikipedias-got-3-4-months-to-live-and-wikipedias-technolo/
Sounds a lot like the purists who continue to seek a purge of all industry "sponsored" support of any kind of any medical research or activity. At some point the lack of commercial investment and the possibility of return will cause new information to dry up.
Non-profits and generic firms have much difference incentives. They don't need to "market" new medicines or even want to. They spend very little here or overseas training or explaining to doctors how to use drugs. You won't see Teva investing in new uses for the generic form of Lovenox (regardless of how valid it's recent patent challenge might be) . And you would not see them invest any time or money in putting together the efficacy and safety data for a priority review of a new indication as Sanofi did.
http://www.pharmaceutical-business-review.com/article_news.asp?guid=DDDCA11E-497B-4979-A659-B8759752875E
The zealots don't care, either because they are healthy (and don't care about the need to commercialize innovation) or driven by drug company hatred. That's a disease too. Read More & Comment...
http://www.calacanis.com/2007/02/10/wikipedias-got-3-4-months-to-live-and-wikipedias-technolo/
Sounds a lot like the purists who continue to seek a purge of all industry "sponsored" support of any kind of any medical research or activity. At some point the lack of commercial investment and the possibility of return will cause new information to dry up.
Non-profits and generic firms have much difference incentives. They don't need to "market" new medicines or even want to. They spend very little here or overseas training or explaining to doctors how to use drugs. You won't see Teva investing in new uses for the generic form of Lovenox (regardless of how valid it's recent patent challenge might be) . And you would not see them invest any time or money in putting together the efficacy and safety data for a priority review of a new indication as Sanofi did.
http://www.pharmaceutical-business-review.com/article_news.asp?guid=DDDCA11E-497B-4979-A659-B8759752875E
The zealots don't care, either because they are healthy (and don't care about the need to commercialize innovation) or driven by drug company hatred. That's a disease too. Read More & Comment...
02/14/2007 06:23 AM |
Shades of Chavez. And so much for the rule of law in Thailand.
According to the military junta in Bangkok, Thailand is planning to break the foreign patents of 14 HIV/AIDS, cancer and heart drugs.
The 14 drugs targeted by the Health Ministry also included antibiotics.The ministry has announced compulsory licences for three of the 14 drugs, allowing it to buy or make generic versions of the two HIV/AIDS drugs and a heart disease medicine.
Foreign drug makers say Thailand's military-appointed government gave no notice to the affected companies before issuing the compulsory licences.
Last month, the Health Ministry issued compulsory licences for the heart disease drug Plavix, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis and Abbott Laboratories' Kaletra to treat HIV/AIDS, after a similar move on another AIDS drug last year.
Under World Trade Organization rules, a government is allowed to declare a national emergency and license the production or sale of a patented drug without the permission of the foreign patent owner.
I suppose a health care system that is a total disaster is an emergency -- but I don't think this is what the WHO had in mind. Read More & Comment...
According to the military junta in Bangkok, Thailand is planning to break the foreign patents of 14 HIV/AIDS, cancer and heart drugs.
The 14 drugs targeted by the Health Ministry also included antibiotics.The ministry has announced compulsory licences for three of the 14 drugs, allowing it to buy or make generic versions of the two HIV/AIDS drugs and a heart disease medicine.
Foreign drug makers say Thailand's military-appointed government gave no notice to the affected companies before issuing the compulsory licences.
Last month, the Health Ministry issued compulsory licences for the heart disease drug Plavix, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis and Abbott Laboratories' Kaletra to treat HIV/AIDS, after a similar move on another AIDS drug last year.
Under World Trade Organization rules, a government is allowed to declare a national emergency and license the production or sale of a patented drug without the permission of the foreign patent owner.
I suppose a health care system that is a total disaster is an emergency -- but I don't think this is what the WHO had in mind. Read More & Comment...
02/13/2007 01:43 PM |
Please join FDA Commissioner Andy von Eschenbach, Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock, Frank Burroughs of the Abigail Alliance, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, and many notables from the worlds of media and medicine for a day-long conference on how the media reports on medicine. The date is February 21. The place is the Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. For more details and a full agenda, please click on the icon on the top of this page.
(We did invite Senator Grassley, but he hasn't sent in his RSVP yet.) Read More & Comment...
(We did invite Senator Grassley, but he hasn't sent in his RSVP yet.) Read More & Comment...
02/13/2007 09:15 AM |
Great commentary piece on expanding access to experimental therapies by CMPI board member Mark Thornton MD.
Drugwonks understands the need for well designed studies to prove safety and efficacy. But given the extent to which political pressure shapes what tools are used, we are skeptical when demands for longer, slower studies of the randomized type are constantly invoked. And when such studies turn away patients willing to enroll and ignore molecular /genetic diversity that can lead to better treatment, quality of life and knowledge, we are downright cynical...
We have to turn the tide against those who want to spend more gathering data on drugs we already know how to use safely -- starting with the imperious IOM report written by it's conflicted panel ( I will get to this issue, I promise!) --- and increase spending on tools that allow more people to become an "army of one" in the war to defeat cancer and other illnesses.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117124379156005353-search.html?KEYWORDS=disease&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month Read More & Comment...
Drugwonks understands the need for well designed studies to prove safety and efficacy. But given the extent to which political pressure shapes what tools are used, we are skeptical when demands for longer, slower studies of the randomized type are constantly invoked. And when such studies turn away patients willing to enroll and ignore molecular /genetic diversity that can lead to better treatment, quality of life and knowledge, we are downright cynical...
We have to turn the tide against those who want to spend more gathering data on drugs we already know how to use safely -- starting with the imperious IOM report written by it's conflicted panel ( I will get to this issue, I promise!) --- and increase spending on tools that allow more people to become an "army of one" in the war to defeat cancer and other illnesses.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117124379156005353-search.html?KEYWORDS=disease&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month Read More & Comment...
02/13/2007 08:11 AM |
Thailand confiscates patents before talking to drug companies -- 20 patents under consideration and counting. No doubt the principal beneficiary will be the corrupt and poorly run government drug monopoly. Meanwhile, the military junta is eagerly reaching out to boost it's economic ties to one of the great democracies on the planet...Iran.
TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Thailand's Commerce Minister Kroekrai Chiraphaet stressed his country's strong support for Iran's membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Speaking in a meeting with Iranian Ambassador to Bangkok Mohsen Pak Ayeen, the Thai official noted Iran's economic potentials and underlined, "Not only Thailand, but also all other Asian states view Iran's membership in the World Trade Organization positively."
He further voiced pleasure for the increasing volume of the two countries' trade exchanges, and welcomed endorsement of cooperation agreements by Iran and Thailand, particularly in the area of trade.
Chiraphaet reiterated that endorsement of trade contracts by Iran and his country can play a significant role in the boosting of the two sides' trade exchanges.
Highlighting the role of the private sector in the growth of the two sides' trade exchanges, he called for the reinvigoration of trade cooperation and frequent mutual visits by the two countries' private sectors.
For his part, Iran's Ambassador to Bangkok Mohsen Pak Ayeen wished success for the new government of Thailand, and expressed the hope that the two sides' growing trend of relations and cooperation would continue.
He stressed the need for the development of Iran-Thailand trade ties, and viewed holding of the 8th joint economic commission meeting in Bangkok as a crucial step for the strengthening of the two countries' trade cooperation.
Pak Ayeen further underscored that consolidation of relations with Asian countries, particularly with ASEAN member states, sets a priority for Iran's foreign policy.
http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=5773
Meanwhile, Israel's Natan Sharansky is calling for a world-wide mobilization against Iran and it's economy similar to that brought against South Africa and the USSR for its policies of repression. In Iran's case, it is leading a global effort to wipe out Israel.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1170359835461&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Where do the NGO's stand on this important issue? Read More & Comment...
TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Thailand's Commerce Minister Kroekrai Chiraphaet stressed his country's strong support for Iran's membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Speaking in a meeting with Iranian Ambassador to Bangkok Mohsen Pak Ayeen, the Thai official noted Iran's economic potentials and underlined, "Not only Thailand, but also all other Asian states view Iran's membership in the World Trade Organization positively."
He further voiced pleasure for the increasing volume of the two countries' trade exchanges, and welcomed endorsement of cooperation agreements by Iran and Thailand, particularly in the area of trade.
Chiraphaet reiterated that endorsement of trade contracts by Iran and his country can play a significant role in the boosting of the two sides' trade exchanges.
Highlighting the role of the private sector in the growth of the two sides' trade exchanges, he called for the reinvigoration of trade cooperation and frequent mutual visits by the two countries' private sectors.
For his part, Iran's Ambassador to Bangkok Mohsen Pak Ayeen wished success for the new government of Thailand, and expressed the hope that the two sides' growing trend of relations and cooperation would continue.
He stressed the need for the development of Iran-Thailand trade ties, and viewed holding of the 8th joint economic commission meeting in Bangkok as a crucial step for the strengthening of the two countries' trade cooperation.
Pak Ayeen further underscored that consolidation of relations with Asian countries, particularly with ASEAN member states, sets a priority for Iran's foreign policy.
http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=5773
Meanwhile, Israel's Natan Sharansky is calling for a world-wide mobilization against Iran and it's economy similar to that brought against South Africa and the USSR for its policies of repression. In Iran's case, it is leading a global effort to wipe out Israel.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1170359835461&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Where do the NGO's stand on this important issue? Read More & Comment...
02/12/2007 10:43 AM |
Wounded in battle, Alexander the Great's last words were, "I am dying at the hands of too many doctors." I know how he feels.
Marcia Angell weighs in on the Medicare prescription drug benefit, predictably calling it a giveaway to drug companies, claiming that the VA drug lists -- as well as drug formularies throughout the world -- only ditch drugs that are not cost-effective. Like Herceptin, Lipitor, Avastin, Gleevec... Angell is the only person in the world who doesn't know that Medicare Part D is ruthlessly shifting patients to generic medicines by the way, which is why she continues to flog me too drugs..
And she continues to talk about drugs that were first discovered 25 years ago instead of what companies are investing in now. Talking about the future means talking about genomics, targeted therapies, personalized medicine, translational research...all the activities companies are spending dough on. And she continues to perpetuate the lie that companies spend more on things other than R&D by lumping in the total cost (administration) of running a corporation to the cost of marketing.
My question is: what new drug has Dr. Angell invested in, worked on, discovered or developed in her lifetime? How would she make drug discovery and development more effective and efficient? Does she have special pre-knowledge about which medicines will work that other scientists do not? If so, I wish she would stop recycling the same old crappy op-ed and share the recipe for developing breakthrough drugs without have to develop all those me-too medicines...
High cost for me-too drugs
And speaking of recycling crap...Steve Nissen is once again claiming that he courageously warned America about the cardiovascular dangers of taking drugs for ADHD, drugs he still claims -- as someone who knows nothing about ADHD -- are way too overused. This time he is claiming this in front of Bart Stupak's Health subcommittee Feb 13th, joining other luminaries such as David Graham to trash the FDA.
I post a response from Dr. Joseph Biederman from Mass General Hospital, one of the nation's expert on treatment of ADHD and use of stimulants for treating the disease to Nissen's nonsense. I have sent it to members of the Health subcomm so they have an idea of what the facts about the risks and benefits of ADHD meds really are.
http://www.massgeneral.org/pediatricpsych/docs/NEJMltr.pdf Read More & Comment...
Marcia Angell weighs in on the Medicare prescription drug benefit, predictably calling it a giveaway to drug companies, claiming that the VA drug lists -- as well as drug formularies throughout the world -- only ditch drugs that are not cost-effective. Like Herceptin, Lipitor, Avastin, Gleevec... Angell is the only person in the world who doesn't know that Medicare Part D is ruthlessly shifting patients to generic medicines by the way, which is why she continues to flog me too drugs..
And she continues to talk about drugs that were first discovered 25 years ago instead of what companies are investing in now. Talking about the future means talking about genomics, targeted therapies, personalized medicine, translational research...all the activities companies are spending dough on. And she continues to perpetuate the lie that companies spend more on things other than R&D by lumping in the total cost (administration) of running a corporation to the cost of marketing.
My question is: what new drug has Dr. Angell invested in, worked on, discovered or developed in her lifetime? How would she make drug discovery and development more effective and efficient? Does she have special pre-knowledge about which medicines will work that other scientists do not? If so, I wish she would stop recycling the same old crappy op-ed and share the recipe for developing breakthrough drugs without have to develop all those me-too medicines...
High cost for me-too drugs
And speaking of recycling crap...Steve Nissen is once again claiming that he courageously warned America about the cardiovascular dangers of taking drugs for ADHD, drugs he still claims -- as someone who knows nothing about ADHD -- are way too overused. This time he is claiming this in front of Bart Stupak's Health subcommittee Feb 13th, joining other luminaries such as David Graham to trash the FDA.
I post a response from Dr. Joseph Biederman from Mass General Hospital, one of the nation's expert on treatment of ADHD and use of stimulants for treating the disease to Nissen's nonsense. I have sent it to members of the Health subcomm so they have an idea of what the facts about the risks and benefits of ADHD meds really are.
http://www.massgeneral.org/pediatricpsych/docs/NEJMltr.pdf Read More & Comment...
02/08/2007 09:27 AM |
The VA is in full retreat about it's penny-wise pound foolish formulary approach. It presented a power point presentation at an AEI summit on price controls in Medicare and then exported the propaganda to a meeting on drug formularies in Helsinki which is ironically the namesake of protocols designed to protect patients from getting screwed without their knowledge.
http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1447,filter.all/event_detail.asp
Here's a breakdown of the myth's and fact's that the VA is now pushing:
1. VA offers more individual drugs that Part D
Fact: The VA offers more different varieties of the SAME drug but (formulations, doses, etc). Part D offers more unique new molecular entitites.
2. The VA formulary is not restrictive
Fact: The VA quotes a report written in 1998 (published in 2000) before it began an effort to push prescribers to adhere more tightly to closed formularies.
3. VA system participants live longer lives
Fact: The VA outright lies and uses a chart that is an outright mischaracterization of Frank Lichtenberg's study Older Drugs, Shorter Lives? An Examination of the Health Effects of the Veterans Health Administration Formulary (which I commissioned when at the Manhattan Institute).
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mpr_02_f4.htm
Frank's chart is above. As you can see, he never claims that people in the VA don't live longer than people not in the VA. And he explains why in a footnote to the paper.
While there are some reasons to expect the mean value of Et to be lower than the mean value of the life expectancy of all U.S. males at birth-serving in the military may impair one's future health-there are other reasons to expect it to be greater. Et is based on a population of individuals who have been veterans, i.e., who lived long enough to serve in the armed forces (e.g., did not die in infancy) and who survived serving in the armed forces. It would be more appropriate to compare Et with the life expectancy of all U.S. males at age twenty, for example. Such data are available for some years (it was 73.25 for 1989-1991 and 75.6 in 2002) but are not available annually (Arias, 2004, Table 11).
What Lichtenberg shows is that after the VA formulary was introduced, the increase in life expectancy at any given period declined. He did not compared differences in LE.
But that's not good enough for the VA. It had to fudge the chart itself. So it introduced a chart that compared periodic life expectancy of vets to life expectancy of all Americans at birth in a way that erases the decline in life expectancy.
4. The VA claims it provides better pharmaceutical care.
Fact. There are many health care services that the VA does extremely well. However to the extent that the VA itself seeks to reduce hospitalizations and prevent disease the use of the best pharmaceuticals is critical to maximizing these goals. The failure of the VA to devote its considerable health IT resources to determine what the best drug for the right patient is reflects an insular and outdated view of medicine. It is very good at achieving better results on process measures relative to some commercial health plans and some evidence that the care it provides is a good as private hospitals. But the VA refuses to allow outside researchers examine the impact of formulary restrictiveness on patient outcomes and total health care costs.
5. The VA doesn't use mail order pharmacy.
Fact: According to GAO and the VA itself, the VA fills 83 percent of its prescriptions through mail order.
6. The VA claims newer is not always better
Fact: Does that mean the VA has more older drugs than Medicare Part D. Does that mean older is always better? In fact, most new drugs are associated with an increase in well-being and clinical improvement with some subpopulation. And in the case of the VA it has not added drugs even the FDA regarded as priority medicines, drugs that have a significant therapeutic value, to its formulary.
7. The VA does not have have a three year wait on all new drugs.
Fact: The VA is right on this count. Sort of. It generally waits a year. Or longer. It was only recently, under pressure from Part D, that it began adding new medicines in a timely fashion. It still hasn't added many new cancer drugs.
8. There have not been 1 million Part D defections
Fact: No defections. But 2 million have signed up for Part D in addition to the VA benefits they receive. Why can't the VA just be honest. There are plenty of people who double dip...
9. Drugs not on the VA formulary are in fact available.
No one said they are unavailable. That's a VA strawman. Drugs not on the formulary are just hard to get. It takes anywhere from 3 days to a week to get an answer. Often you have to try a drug for a while before you can ask for a change, which means traveling to see a doctor. As a result, even the VA's own numbers show that less than 5-10 percent of its patients get medicines like Lipitor, Ambien or Protonix.
10. Doctors are satisfied with the restrictive formularies.
Fact. Fully a third of all doctors who took the time to respond to a VA run survey complained it took too long to get requests answered. (Provider perceptions of pharmacy management: lessons from the military health system.
Med Care. 2004 Apr;42(4):361-6. )
Another survey (also self-selected respondents) found that 35 percent of doctors believed the national formulary restricted access to important drugs. Glassman PA, Good CB, Kelley ME, Bradley M, Valentino M, Ogden J, Kizer KW. Related Articles, Links
Free Full Text Physician perceptions of a national formulary.
Am J Manag Care. 2001 Mar;7(3):241-51. Read More & Comment...
http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1447,filter.all/event_detail.asp
Here's a breakdown of the myth's and fact's that the VA is now pushing:
1. VA offers more individual drugs that Part D
Fact: The VA offers more different varieties of the SAME drug but (formulations, doses, etc). Part D offers more unique new molecular entitites.
2. The VA formulary is not restrictive
Fact: The VA quotes a report written in 1998 (published in 2000) before it began an effort to push prescribers to adhere more tightly to closed formularies.
3. VA system participants live longer lives
Fact: The VA outright lies and uses a chart that is an outright mischaracterization of Frank Lichtenberg's study Older Drugs, Shorter Lives? An Examination of the Health Effects of the Veterans Health Administration Formulary (which I commissioned when at the Manhattan Institute).
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mpr_02_f4.htm
Frank's chart is above. As you can see, he never claims that people in the VA don't live longer than people not in the VA. And he explains why in a footnote to the paper.
While there are some reasons to expect the mean value of Et to be lower than the mean value of the life expectancy of all U.S. males at birth-serving in the military may impair one's future health-there are other reasons to expect it to be greater. Et is based on a population of individuals who have been veterans, i.e., who lived long enough to serve in the armed forces (e.g., did not die in infancy) and who survived serving in the armed forces. It would be more appropriate to compare Et with the life expectancy of all U.S. males at age twenty, for example. Such data are available for some years (it was 73.25 for 1989-1991 and 75.6 in 2002) but are not available annually (Arias, 2004, Table 11).
What Lichtenberg shows is that after the VA formulary was introduced, the increase in life expectancy at any given period declined. He did not compared differences in LE.
But that's not good enough for the VA. It had to fudge the chart itself. So it introduced a chart that compared periodic life expectancy of vets to life expectancy of all Americans at birth in a way that erases the decline in life expectancy.
4. The VA claims it provides better pharmaceutical care.
Fact. There are many health care services that the VA does extremely well. However to the extent that the VA itself seeks to reduce hospitalizations and prevent disease the use of the best pharmaceuticals is critical to maximizing these goals. The failure of the VA to devote its considerable health IT resources to determine what the best drug for the right patient is reflects an insular and outdated view of medicine. It is very good at achieving better results on process measures relative to some commercial health plans and some evidence that the care it provides is a good as private hospitals. But the VA refuses to allow outside researchers examine the impact of formulary restrictiveness on patient outcomes and total health care costs.
5. The VA doesn't use mail order pharmacy.
Fact: According to GAO and the VA itself, the VA fills 83 percent of its prescriptions through mail order.
6. The VA claims newer is not always better
Fact: Does that mean the VA has more older drugs than Medicare Part D. Does that mean older is always better? In fact, most new drugs are associated with an increase in well-being and clinical improvement with some subpopulation. And in the case of the VA it has not added drugs even the FDA regarded as priority medicines, drugs that have a significant therapeutic value, to its formulary.
7. The VA does not have have a three year wait on all new drugs.
Fact: The VA is right on this count. Sort of. It generally waits a year. Or longer. It was only recently, under pressure from Part D, that it began adding new medicines in a timely fashion. It still hasn't added many new cancer drugs.
8. There have not been 1 million Part D defections
Fact: No defections. But 2 million have signed up for Part D in addition to the VA benefits they receive. Why can't the VA just be honest. There are plenty of people who double dip...
9. Drugs not on the VA formulary are in fact available.
No one said they are unavailable. That's a VA strawman. Drugs not on the formulary are just hard to get. It takes anywhere from 3 days to a week to get an answer. Often you have to try a drug for a while before you can ask for a change, which means traveling to see a doctor. As a result, even the VA's own numbers show that less than 5-10 percent of its patients get medicines like Lipitor, Ambien or Protonix.
10. Doctors are satisfied with the restrictive formularies.
Fact. Fully a third of all doctors who took the time to respond to a VA run survey complained it took too long to get requests answered. (Provider perceptions of pharmacy management: lessons from the military health system.
Med Care. 2004 Apr;42(4):361-6. )
Another survey (also self-selected respondents) found that 35 percent of doctors believed the national formulary restricted access to important drugs. Glassman PA, Good CB, Kelley ME, Bradley M, Valentino M, Ogden J, Kizer KW. Related Articles, Links
Free Full Text Physician perceptions of a national formulary.
Am J Manag Care. 2001 Mar;7(3):241-51. Read More & Comment...
02/08/2007 09:22 AM |
Here's something I would like the opponents of authorized generics to explain: Why is it ok for generic drug companies to divy up the profits during the exclusivity period after a Para 4 challenge but not for an innovator company to introduce it's own generic version that does the same thing?
To wit from Beth McClean's article about Apopletic's Bernie Sherman in Fortune:
"Because they (meaning the generic firms) had all filed on the same day, they would have had to share the 180-day period - meaning profits would have been slim even during the period of supposed exclusivity."
The high price of drug patents Read More & Comment...
To wit from Beth McClean's article about Apopletic's Bernie Sherman in Fortune:
"Because they (meaning the generic firms) had all filed on the same day, they would have had to share the 180-day period - meaning profits would have been slim even during the period of supposed exclusivity."
The high price of drug patents Read More & Comment...
02/08/2007 08:43 AM |
I've been in Helsinki for the past few days attending a conference entitled, "Financing Sustainable Healthcare in Europe." My fear was that it would devolve into a conference on Sustainable Healthcare Financing in Europe. It didn't.
It didn't, even though there was a presentation by the US Veterans Administration on, among other things, their wonderful formulary.
It didn't, even though there were more than a few presentations on both evidence-based medicine and healthcare technology assessment.
It didn't, even though the issue of information-to-patients and the "empowered consumer" were discussed.
And this was in Europe! A good sign that sanity may yet prevail in the land that brought us such wonderful acronyms as NICE and IQWIG.
It might be overly optimistic to say this was the beginning of a continental debate on ways to save the future of health care in Europe in ways other than just saving money.
It might be overly optimistic -- but it's worth hoping for the best. And the best and the brightest were in attendance in Helsinki.
The event was sponsored by SITRA, the Finnish Innovation Fund, Luxembourg's Ministry of Health, and Pfizer. Attendees came from across Europe and included health ministers and senior government advisors (the health ministers of Finland and Poland and a former prime minister of Finland attended and participated) along with leading academics, decision-makers and thought leaders from both "New" and "Old" Europe, and other points on the map (Finland, Sweden, Demmark, Norway, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Cyprus, France, the United Kingdom, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Albania, Luxembourg, the Slovak Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Portugal, Hungary, Ireland, Germany).
There was also a minyan or more of senior officials from the European Commission and the European Parliament. In fact, the conference was chaired (and expertly so) by Pat Cox, the former President of the European Parliament.
The bonus of having so many high-profile government types in one room at the same time is that they tell memorable stories. The best came from Aho Esko (the former Finnish PM) who recalled the time when the Premier of Iceland said to the Prime Minister of Israel that their two nations were very different -- Israel being the nation chosen by God. Iceland the one frozen by God.
The presentations from the event should be shortly available at http://www.sustainhealthcare.org
The most important take-away was that many of the presentations focused on the theme that "health is wealth" -- and that, as such, health care is a worthwhile investment.
Wither such positive momentum? Time will tell. Read More & Comment...
It didn't, even though there was a presentation by the US Veterans Administration on, among other things, their wonderful formulary.
It didn't, even though there were more than a few presentations on both evidence-based medicine and healthcare technology assessment.
It didn't, even though the issue of information-to-patients and the "empowered consumer" were discussed.
And this was in Europe! A good sign that sanity may yet prevail in the land that brought us such wonderful acronyms as NICE and IQWIG.
It might be overly optimistic to say this was the beginning of a continental debate on ways to save the future of health care in Europe in ways other than just saving money.
It might be overly optimistic -- but it's worth hoping for the best. And the best and the brightest were in attendance in Helsinki.
The event was sponsored by SITRA, the Finnish Innovation Fund, Luxembourg's Ministry of Health, and Pfizer. Attendees came from across Europe and included health ministers and senior government advisors (the health ministers of Finland and Poland and a former prime minister of Finland attended and participated) along with leading academics, decision-makers and thought leaders from both "New" and "Old" Europe, and other points on the map (Finland, Sweden, Demmark, Norway, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Cyprus, France, the United Kingdom, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Albania, Luxembourg, the Slovak Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Portugal, Hungary, Ireland, Germany).
There was also a minyan or more of senior officials from the European Commission and the European Parliament. In fact, the conference was chaired (and expertly so) by Pat Cox, the former President of the European Parliament.
The bonus of having so many high-profile government types in one room at the same time is that they tell memorable stories. The best came from Aho Esko (the former Finnish PM) who recalled the time when the Premier of Iceland said to the Prime Minister of Israel that their two nations were very different -- Israel being the nation chosen by God. Iceland the one frozen by God.
The presentations from the event should be shortly available at http://www.sustainhealthcare.org
The most important take-away was that many of the presentations focused on the theme that "health is wealth" -- and that, as such, health care is a worthwhile investment.
Wither such positive momentum? Time will tell. Read More & Comment...
02/08/2007 08:11 AM |
How is it that every time the debate on treating AIDS pops up (in this case triggered by a military junta in Thailand seeking to deflect criticism of its regime) it is always a re-run of the drug price issue?
Drugs are the smallest part of the cost of treating people with HIV and countries that do not improve their public health systems or increase spending on training, facilities and infrastructure will not get pills to patients. Similarly, countries that rush pills into production will promote drug resistance...
Here's a great article by Hudson Institute's Jerry Norris that makes the case against deja vu on HIV:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/detail.asp?onNews=&GRP=i&id=96521 Read More & Comment...
Drugs are the smallest part of the cost of treating people with HIV and countries that do not improve their public health systems or increase spending on training, facilities and infrastructure will not get pills to patients. Similarly, countries that rush pills into production will promote drug resistance...
Here's a great article by Hudson Institute's Jerry Norris that makes the case against deja vu on HIV:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/detail.asp?onNews=&GRP=i&id=96521 Read More & Comment...
02/08/2007 07:48 AM |
You mean working at a pharmaceutical company isn't all about the money?
The Role of Scientific Reseachers in Pharmaceutical R&D
Source: Clinical Discovery Magazine By Jim Loftus and Dr. Mark Edwards; January/February 2007
Introduction
The road to a more effective, new medicine for use by patients is necessarily long, complex and fraught with pitfalls. For every 40 potential new drugs that show promise in vitro, only 1 or 2 ultimately become “approved†medicines 10-15 years later. It is therefore not surprising that pharmaceutical companies demand the highest calibre scientists to work in their R&D groups. In this article, we describe the roles and the potential career development opportunities within pharmaceutical R&D for two types of researcher; the Research Biologist and the R&D Clinician.
The Research Biologist
Preclinical drug discovery and development offer numerous opportunities for well trained life scientists. For any drug it is important to establish that it works, is safe for patients to take, and what happens to it once it’s administered. This is broadly the remit of Discovery Biology, Drug Safety R&D (DSRD) and Pharmacokinetics, Dynamics and Metabolism (PDM).* Entry to careers in these departments is possible at a number of levels, from school leaver to graduate to PhD, and at more senior levels. Although these departments will recruit biologists from a range of backgrounds (including Pharmacology, Physiology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology), roles for Biomedical Scientists can be found in all departments working as part of multidisciplinary teams. Examples include histologists working in discovery programmes looking at tissue changes in disease models and the ability of experimental drugs to prevent these. In drug safety they look for drug related histopathology. Scientists with a clinical chemistry background have skills relevant to bioanalytical roles analysing pre-clinical and clinical samples for drug levels and therefore enabling pharmacokinetic profiles to be analysed. Their skills and knowledge are also useful in identifying and analysing potential efficacy and safety biomarkers, which is an area of great importance in modern drug discovery and development. Toxicology labs also have a requirement for trained pathologists to diagnose histological changes in preclinical toxicology.
For graduate entry level positions a usual requirement is a 2:1 honours degree with some practical experience. Occasionally vacancies will arise for experienced graduates with transferable skills and a flexible attitude. Factors affecting availability of these positions will be the structure of the individual company and where and how it does its research. It’s worth investigating websites of pharmaceutical companies and CROs (contract research organisations) to see what potential opportunities there are. If a lack of research or industrial experience hinders your job search, and you don’t have the opportunity to pursue this in your current environment, one solution might be to find contract work through an agency, although there is no guarantee of permanent employment at the end of a contract.
Once employed by a pharmaceutical company your career path can take various directions. Flexibility is a key word – my career took me from being a histologist (I trained in a hospital pathology laboratory) to carrying out in vitro biochemistry experiments looking at cellular metabolites, to research looking at whole animal disease models, and eventually out of the lab altogether into a training and recruitment role. Other people build their careers moving up the research ladder into roles of increasing scientific impact and responsibility. Others use their scientific training to move into any of a multitude of roles available in the pharmaceutical industry, including some of those described in the next section on clinical research.
*The names of departments with similar functions will vary from company to company. A search of individual websites is a useful way of orientating yourself to their structures and terminology.
The R&D Clinician
Clinicians working in pharmaceutical R&D usually have a medical degree with a postgraduate qualification (e.g. MRCP, MD, PhD) or a biomedical PhD with experience in clinical research. Clinical experience may be broad or highly specialised within a specific disease area.
Within the Clinical R&D department of a large company conducting research into many therapeutic areas, a clinician will gain a broad range of professional and research experience. Working within large multidisciplinary drug development teams, the central role of these “clinical research†doctors is to bring their clinical perspective to all research and development activities.
Before human clinical studies commence, the clinician must work with other research colleagues (e.g. Discovery Biology) to ensure that an appropriate level of prospective scientific thinking goes into understanding the clinical development strategy for an investigational drug. For example, is the unmet medical need fully understood i.e. which patients will potentially benefit from this new medicine? what does preclinical data suggest about the potential efficacy, tolerability and safety profiles in humans?; how will biomarkers be developed and validated?; how will theoretical, potential or actual risks be assessed and appropriately communicated? In essence, their role is to develop the clinical aspects of a “product profile†to ensure all feasible clinical uses for the new drug have been considered. This maximises the potential benefit of the medicine to patients and society.
The clinical trial is the fundamental tool of clinical research and in collaboration with colleagues in other specialties the R&D clinician is responsible for their design. Clinical trials must be designed with the highest scientific rigour as they generate the data that underpin both internal decision-making as well as approval of a new medicine by regulatory agencies. The clinician is also responsible for understanding and communicating the emerging benefit-risk of a new medicine as it progresses through the stages of clinical development.
Hopefully this gives some flavour as to how varied the role of a research clinician may be. There are various career paths for an R&D clinician that will usually depend on an individual’s area of interest. For example, someone with a good balance of technical and people-management skills could pursue either clinical team leadership or therapy area management opportunities. However, those whose interests remain more firmly centred in science and technology would probably have opportunities as senior “scientific advisersâ€. Alternatively their scientific expertise and background in “clinical application†may be usefully transferred to other departments (e.g. Discovery).
The Medical Marketing group is often the beneficiary of clinicians with R&D experience, especially if that person has taken the drug through its development to regulatory approval. In this instance the R&D clinician often brings years of medical therapy area and drug knowledge that can readily be applied to the development of marketing strategies. They can understand the totality of the research results for a medicine and ensure that product strategy and marketing is supported by a good quality evidence base. Here, the clinician would also be responsible for product positioning via the review and approval of promotional materials, interactions with key opinion leaders, sales force training and the design, medical execution and interpretation of phase 4 clinical trial programmes.
Pharmacovigilance (drug safety) is another area where clinicians with R&D experience may find career development opportunities. The ongoing review of safety data throughout a clinical programme is fundamental to the identification, assessment and management of emerging safety signals, as is the timely and comprehensive regulatory reporting of serious adverse events. These data form a pivotal component of the clinical safety summaries that are submitted to regulators as part of their review and approval process for a new medicine.
Finally, possessing a clinical background can also provide complementary skills sets to departments that are not primarily clinically or medically focussed. As well as Discovery, other departments within pharmaceutical R&D where clinicians may find rewarding development opportunities include Regulatory Affairs, Clinical/Development Operations and Science Policy and Public Affairs. A career in this industry is varied and rarely dull. Clinicians work at the cutting edge of science - interpreting this and translating it into medicines that bring benefit to patients and society. Biology is unpredictable; the attrition in our industry is high. No two days are the same and problems are often those that have never been faced before. The intellectual challenge is great. The reward when a successful medicine reaches the patient is fantastic.
Summary
The research and development of new medicines in the pharmaceutical industry is a challenging and highly rewarding career option for research scientists. Pharmaceutical R&D requires scientists of the highest calibre and while specific skills sets are needed for some individual tasks, a successful outcome i.e. the delivery of a new therapy for patients, will only happen as a consequence of integrated working within a multidisciplinary development team over a lengthy period of time. Opportunities for career development are extremely varied and reflect the multiple skills needs that a successful R&D company must have. For an individual scientist, no career path should ever be thought to be impassable or closed.
Authors
Jim Loftus GIBiol, Discovery Recruitment Manager, Pfizer Global Research and Development, Sandwich Laboratories
Dr Mark Edwards BSc MB BS FRCA, Senior Director Science Policy, Pfizer Global Research and Development, Sandwich Laboratories Read More & Comment...
The Role of Scientific Reseachers in Pharmaceutical R&D
Source: Clinical Discovery Magazine By Jim Loftus and Dr. Mark Edwards; January/February 2007
Introduction
The road to a more effective, new medicine for use by patients is necessarily long, complex and fraught with pitfalls. For every 40 potential new drugs that show promise in vitro, only 1 or 2 ultimately become “approved†medicines 10-15 years later. It is therefore not surprising that pharmaceutical companies demand the highest calibre scientists to work in their R&D groups. In this article, we describe the roles and the potential career development opportunities within pharmaceutical R&D for two types of researcher; the Research Biologist and the R&D Clinician.
The Research Biologist
Preclinical drug discovery and development offer numerous opportunities for well trained life scientists. For any drug it is important to establish that it works, is safe for patients to take, and what happens to it once it’s administered. This is broadly the remit of Discovery Biology, Drug Safety R&D (DSRD) and Pharmacokinetics, Dynamics and Metabolism (PDM).* Entry to careers in these departments is possible at a number of levels, from school leaver to graduate to PhD, and at more senior levels. Although these departments will recruit biologists from a range of backgrounds (including Pharmacology, Physiology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology), roles for Biomedical Scientists can be found in all departments working as part of multidisciplinary teams. Examples include histologists working in discovery programmes looking at tissue changes in disease models and the ability of experimental drugs to prevent these. In drug safety they look for drug related histopathology. Scientists with a clinical chemistry background have skills relevant to bioanalytical roles analysing pre-clinical and clinical samples for drug levels and therefore enabling pharmacokinetic profiles to be analysed. Their skills and knowledge are also useful in identifying and analysing potential efficacy and safety biomarkers, which is an area of great importance in modern drug discovery and development. Toxicology labs also have a requirement for trained pathologists to diagnose histological changes in preclinical toxicology.
For graduate entry level positions a usual requirement is a 2:1 honours degree with some practical experience. Occasionally vacancies will arise for experienced graduates with transferable skills and a flexible attitude. Factors affecting availability of these positions will be the structure of the individual company and where and how it does its research. It’s worth investigating websites of pharmaceutical companies and CROs (contract research organisations) to see what potential opportunities there are. If a lack of research or industrial experience hinders your job search, and you don’t have the opportunity to pursue this in your current environment, one solution might be to find contract work through an agency, although there is no guarantee of permanent employment at the end of a contract.
Once employed by a pharmaceutical company your career path can take various directions. Flexibility is a key word – my career took me from being a histologist (I trained in a hospital pathology laboratory) to carrying out in vitro biochemistry experiments looking at cellular metabolites, to research looking at whole animal disease models, and eventually out of the lab altogether into a training and recruitment role. Other people build their careers moving up the research ladder into roles of increasing scientific impact and responsibility. Others use their scientific training to move into any of a multitude of roles available in the pharmaceutical industry, including some of those described in the next section on clinical research.
*The names of departments with similar functions will vary from company to company. A search of individual websites is a useful way of orientating yourself to their structures and terminology.
The R&D Clinician
Clinicians working in pharmaceutical R&D usually have a medical degree with a postgraduate qualification (e.g. MRCP, MD, PhD) or a biomedical PhD with experience in clinical research. Clinical experience may be broad or highly specialised within a specific disease area.
Within the Clinical R&D department of a large company conducting research into many therapeutic areas, a clinician will gain a broad range of professional and research experience. Working within large multidisciplinary drug development teams, the central role of these “clinical research†doctors is to bring their clinical perspective to all research and development activities.
Before human clinical studies commence, the clinician must work with other research colleagues (e.g. Discovery Biology) to ensure that an appropriate level of prospective scientific thinking goes into understanding the clinical development strategy for an investigational drug. For example, is the unmet medical need fully understood i.e. which patients will potentially benefit from this new medicine? what does preclinical data suggest about the potential efficacy, tolerability and safety profiles in humans?; how will biomarkers be developed and validated?; how will theoretical, potential or actual risks be assessed and appropriately communicated? In essence, their role is to develop the clinical aspects of a “product profile†to ensure all feasible clinical uses for the new drug have been considered. This maximises the potential benefit of the medicine to patients and society.
The clinical trial is the fundamental tool of clinical research and in collaboration with colleagues in other specialties the R&D clinician is responsible for their design. Clinical trials must be designed with the highest scientific rigour as they generate the data that underpin both internal decision-making as well as approval of a new medicine by regulatory agencies. The clinician is also responsible for understanding and communicating the emerging benefit-risk of a new medicine as it progresses through the stages of clinical development.
Hopefully this gives some flavour as to how varied the role of a research clinician may be. There are various career paths for an R&D clinician that will usually depend on an individual’s area of interest. For example, someone with a good balance of technical and people-management skills could pursue either clinical team leadership or therapy area management opportunities. However, those whose interests remain more firmly centred in science and technology would probably have opportunities as senior “scientific advisersâ€. Alternatively their scientific expertise and background in “clinical application†may be usefully transferred to other departments (e.g. Discovery).
The Medical Marketing group is often the beneficiary of clinicians with R&D experience, especially if that person has taken the drug through its development to regulatory approval. In this instance the R&D clinician often brings years of medical therapy area and drug knowledge that can readily be applied to the development of marketing strategies. They can understand the totality of the research results for a medicine and ensure that product strategy and marketing is supported by a good quality evidence base. Here, the clinician would also be responsible for product positioning via the review and approval of promotional materials, interactions with key opinion leaders, sales force training and the design, medical execution and interpretation of phase 4 clinical trial programmes.
Pharmacovigilance (drug safety) is another area where clinicians with R&D experience may find career development opportunities. The ongoing review of safety data throughout a clinical programme is fundamental to the identification, assessment and management of emerging safety signals, as is the timely and comprehensive regulatory reporting of serious adverse events. These data form a pivotal component of the clinical safety summaries that are submitted to regulators as part of their review and approval process for a new medicine.
Finally, possessing a clinical background can also provide complementary skills sets to departments that are not primarily clinically or medically focussed. As well as Discovery, other departments within pharmaceutical R&D where clinicians may find rewarding development opportunities include Regulatory Affairs, Clinical/Development Operations and Science Policy and Public Affairs. A career in this industry is varied and rarely dull. Clinicians work at the cutting edge of science - interpreting this and translating it into medicines that bring benefit to patients and society. Biology is unpredictable; the attrition in our industry is high. No two days are the same and problems are often those that have never been faced before. The intellectual challenge is great. The reward when a successful medicine reaches the patient is fantastic.
Summary
The research and development of new medicines in the pharmaceutical industry is a challenging and highly rewarding career option for research scientists. Pharmaceutical R&D requires scientists of the highest calibre and while specific skills sets are needed for some individual tasks, a successful outcome i.e. the delivery of a new therapy for patients, will only happen as a consequence of integrated working within a multidisciplinary development team over a lengthy period of time. Opportunities for career development are extremely varied and reflect the multiple skills needs that a successful R&D company must have. For an individual scientist, no career path should ever be thought to be impassable or closed.
Authors
Jim Loftus GIBiol, Discovery Recruitment Manager, Pfizer Global Research and Development, Sandwich Laboratories
Dr Mark Edwards BSc MB BS FRCA, Senior Director Science Policy, Pfizer Global Research and Development, Sandwich Laboratories Read More & Comment...
02/07/2007 10:16 PM |
I had to get that headline in there...
Pfizer sells Viagra in China as "Wan Ai Ke," but argued that it also is known as "Wei Ge," or "Mighty Brother," and other companies should be barred from using that name. A court in China stiffed Pfizer's challenge to have that a ruling against them overturned.
I think I will stop now.
Pfizer loses battle over Chinese name for Viagra Read More & Comment...
Pfizer sells Viagra in China as "Wan Ai Ke," but argued that it also is known as "Wei Ge," or "Mighty Brother," and other companies should be barred from using that name. A court in China stiffed Pfizer's challenge to have that a ruling against them overturned.
I think I will stop now.
Pfizer loses battle over Chinese name for Viagra Read More & Comment...
02/07/2007 08:44 PM |
UPitt Law Prof. Janice Mueller writes in the NEJM in mild favor of India's attempt to seize the Novartis patent for Gleevec. She notes that India has a world class generic drug industry and that Indian generics companies, for instance, supply 84% of the AIDS drugs that Doctors without Borders uses to treat 60,000 patients in more than 30 countries.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/6/541?query=TOC
Wow. That's almost .005 percent of all HIV positive patients in all countries.
She goes on to note that under TRIPS WTO members have the flexibility to fine-tune what they define as inventive-step criteria to reflect national socioeconomic conditions. Which means that if NGOs and their fellow travelers want to argue that Gleevec is not really that much of a breakthrough for purposes of compulsory licensing that's ok. Which is pretty funny when you realize that the purpose of TRIPs according to NGOs is to make breakthrough drugs available to the poor.
But does it? Where is the evidence that compulsory licensing has really made a difference in improving health or making medicines available. The fact is, partnerships in improving infrastructure and in the development and production of new medicines are more productive than confiscation. And the fact is, patents are essential to bringing new products online every step of the way in most countries.
And what about the consequences of undermining innovation. What will happen to patented drugs in the future when they come from Indian, Singapore, China or partnerships formed by universities and the Gates Foundation?
The debate about IP and global health -- whatever that means -- has been polarized. I place most of the blame on the NGO class that is more interested in killing IP than in saving the lives of people on this planet. Drug companies have their own problems but the fact it is, the future of global health now rests in the hands of partnerships and new generation so global health entrepreneurs who most be the focus of our attention.
To this end, the following observation from www.ipgh.com is highly relevant.
We believe, under certain circumstances, that patents (as one form of IP), used solely to help achieve global health objectives, can and will speed delivery of affordable and accessible global health solutions. We also believe, under different circumstances, that patents will not help achieve these objectives and/or will hinder their attainment. Our responsibility, as IP managers and in consultation with cross-functional teams working to bring these solutions to fruition, is to determine which scenario (or ones in between) apply. When we get it "right", we save lives.
What's needed is not more interchange as to whether IP rights are "good" or "bad"; they are neither. Instead, we need to turn our attentions to how they can be used and answering highly project- and situation-specific questions like:
* Based on our experience and what we know now, can we use IP to help attain our global health objectives for this specific endeavor? If so, how?
* Might third party IP prevent us from achieving our objectives and if so, what can we do about it and when?
* What can we learn from the IP record about competitors and potential partners?
* How might we use IP management to make data and information sharing easier and hence accelerate development? Read More & Comment...
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/6/541?query=TOC
Wow. That's almost .005 percent of all HIV positive patients in all countries.
She goes on to note that under TRIPS WTO members have the flexibility to fine-tune what they define as inventive-step criteria to reflect national socioeconomic conditions. Which means that if NGOs and their fellow travelers want to argue that Gleevec is not really that much of a breakthrough for purposes of compulsory licensing that's ok. Which is pretty funny when you realize that the purpose of TRIPs according to NGOs is to make breakthrough drugs available to the poor.
But does it? Where is the evidence that compulsory licensing has really made a difference in improving health or making medicines available. The fact is, partnerships in improving infrastructure and in the development and production of new medicines are more productive than confiscation. And the fact is, patents are essential to bringing new products online every step of the way in most countries.
And what about the consequences of undermining innovation. What will happen to patented drugs in the future when they come from Indian, Singapore, China or partnerships formed by universities and the Gates Foundation?
The debate about IP and global health -- whatever that means -- has been polarized. I place most of the blame on the NGO class that is more interested in killing IP than in saving the lives of people on this planet. Drug companies have their own problems but the fact it is, the future of global health now rests in the hands of partnerships and new generation so global health entrepreneurs who most be the focus of our attention.
To this end, the following observation from www.ipgh.com is highly relevant.
We believe, under certain circumstances, that patents (as one form of IP), used solely to help achieve global health objectives, can and will speed delivery of affordable and accessible global health solutions. We also believe, under different circumstances, that patents will not help achieve these objectives and/or will hinder their attainment. Our responsibility, as IP managers and in consultation with cross-functional teams working to bring these solutions to fruition, is to determine which scenario (or ones in between) apply. When we get it "right", we save lives.
What's needed is not more interchange as to whether IP rights are "good" or "bad"; they are neither. Instead, we need to turn our attentions to how they can be used and answering highly project- and situation-specific questions like:
* Based on our experience and what we know now, can we use IP to help attain our global health objectives for this specific endeavor? If so, how?
* Might third party IP prevent us from achieving our objectives and if so, what can we do about it and when?
* What can we learn from the IP record about competitors and potential partners?
* How might we use IP management to make data and information sharing easier and hence accelerate development? Read More & Comment...
02/06/2007 12:39 PM |
Perhaps the most important announcement emanating from the FDA is the past month has been the appointment of Dr. Janet Woodcock as the agency's chief medical officer.
Janet can now focus her laser-beam attention and prodigious talents towards, among other things, making the Critical Path program a major cornerstone of a 21st Century FDA.
And she will. Read More & Comment...
Janet can now focus her laser-beam attention and prodigious talents towards, among other things, making the Critical Path program a major cornerstone of a 21st Century FDA.
And she will. Read More & Comment...
02/06/2007 08:17 AM |
A couple of months ago was attacked by a group called Breast Cancer Action for their scaremongering about the risks of mammograms for women under 50. Now it seems like that organization's efforts are also paying off:
Fewer Mammograms Means More Breast Cancer Deaths
It is a small statistic in a straightforward report. But its impact and implications are potentially huge.
From 2000 to 2005, the percentage of women age 40 and over who received a mammogram within the previous two years fell from 76.4 percent to 74.6 percent — a 1.8 percent drop.
Because in real terms, this means that thousands of women may have undetected breast cancer and could potentially miss the opportunity to save their own lives.
This wasn't really unexpected by those of us who try to keep up with current mammography practices.
My colleagues at the American Cancer Society noted a year ago that there had been a decline in mammography-screening compliance. We were also aware that there appeared to be a decline in mammography in women on Medicare, a group that is at particularly high risk of developing breast cancer."
I would like to attribute the decline to complacency (mammograms are paid for) or a fear of finding out but studies suggest otherwise. Instead, the small fall off reflects an offshoot of a growing trend of people getting medical advice from scam artists and enemies of medical progress who themselves have a financial or ideological agenda....
Now, who would you trust? Organizations that ultimately have a goal in making people healthy who make money in the process or people who make their money and get their publicity by scaring people away from seeking out and obtaining care that can save their lives? (Scientologists, Breast Cancer Action, Joseph Mercola, Kevin Trudeau, Public Citizen) Read More & Comment...
Fewer Mammograms Means More Breast Cancer Deaths
It is a small statistic in a straightforward report. But its impact and implications are potentially huge.
From 2000 to 2005, the percentage of women age 40 and over who received a mammogram within the previous two years fell from 76.4 percent to 74.6 percent — a 1.8 percent drop.
Because in real terms, this means that thousands of women may have undetected breast cancer and could potentially miss the opportunity to save their own lives.
This wasn't really unexpected by those of us who try to keep up with current mammography practices.
My colleagues at the American Cancer Society noted a year ago that there had been a decline in mammography-screening compliance. We were also aware that there appeared to be a decline in mammography in women on Medicare, a group that is at particularly high risk of developing breast cancer."
I would like to attribute the decline to complacency (mammograms are paid for) or a fear of finding out but studies suggest otherwise. Instead, the small fall off reflects an offshoot of a growing trend of people getting medical advice from scam artists and enemies of medical progress who themselves have a financial or ideological agenda....
Now, who would you trust? Organizations that ultimately have a goal in making people healthy who make money in the process or people who make their money and get their publicity by scaring people away from seeking out and obtaining care that can save their lives? (Scientologists, Breast Cancer Action, Joseph Mercola, Kevin Trudeau, Public Citizen) Read More & Comment...
02/06/2007 07:43 AM |
I guess Gardiner Harris, the Scientologists, Eliot Spitzer, Shankar Vendantam, The New York Times editorial page, the British Medical Journal, David Graham, and everyone else who hyperventilated about the link between SSRI's and suicide were right, finally. It was hard work but it all paid off.
According to Drug Benefit Trends.."data from Medco Health Solutions showed that at the end of the first quarter of 2004, the number of persons younger than 18 receiving antidepressants declined by 18% compared with the fourth quarter of 2003; the number dropped another 5% in the second quarter of 2004.[1] This decline contrasts sharply with what had been a 77% increase in the number of filled prescriptions for antidepressants and other psychotropic medications for children and adolescents from 2000 to 2003."
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/504164
The result?
Kids' Suicides Rise, CDC Report Finds
By LINDSEY TANNER Tuesday, February 06, 2007
CHICAGO - New government figures show a surprising increase in youth suicides after a decade of decline, and some mental health experts think a drop in use of antidepressant drugs may be to blame.
The suicide rate climbed 18 percent from 2003 to 2004 for Americans under age 20, from 1,737 deaths to 1,985. Most suicides occurred in older teens, according to the data _ the most current to date from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
By contrast, the suicide rate among 15- to 19-year-olds fell in previous years, from about 11 per 100,000 in 1990 to 7.3 per 100,000 in 2003.
Suicides were the only cause of death that increased for children through age 19 from 2003-04, according to a CDC report released Monday. (It should be noted that many in the media confused suicidality with suicide and never explained the difference thereafter in fanning the flames of fear.)
Here's the link to the AP article:
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/02/06/ap/health/d8n3tp7o0.txt Read More & Comment...
According to Drug Benefit Trends.."data from Medco Health Solutions showed that at the end of the first quarter of 2004, the number of persons younger than 18 receiving antidepressants declined by 18% compared with the fourth quarter of 2003; the number dropped another 5% in the second quarter of 2004.[1] This decline contrasts sharply with what had been a 77% increase in the number of filled prescriptions for antidepressants and other psychotropic medications for children and adolescents from 2000 to 2003."
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/504164
The result?
Kids' Suicides Rise, CDC Report Finds
By LINDSEY TANNER Tuesday, February 06, 2007
CHICAGO - New government figures show a surprising increase in youth suicides after a decade of decline, and some mental health experts think a drop in use of antidepressant drugs may be to blame.
The suicide rate climbed 18 percent from 2003 to 2004 for Americans under age 20, from 1,737 deaths to 1,985. Most suicides occurred in older teens, according to the data _ the most current to date from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
By contrast, the suicide rate among 15- to 19-year-olds fell in previous years, from about 11 per 100,000 in 1990 to 7.3 per 100,000 in 2003.
Suicides were the only cause of death that increased for children through age 19 from 2003-04, according to a CDC report released Monday. (It should be noted that many in the media confused suicidality with suicide and never explained the difference thereafter in fanning the flames of fear.)
Here's the link to the AP article:
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/02/06/ap/health/d8n3tp7o0.txt Read More & Comment...
Social Networks
Please Follow the Drugwonks Blog on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube & RSS
Add This Blog to my Technorati Favorites