Posts
Arteries Clogged by Moolah
Cardiobrief, via Dow Jones newswire, reports on the extraordinary sums MSP provided to CME related to Vytorin. One single grant amount to $6 M.
See: http://cardiobrief.org/2009/09/16/senate-investigation-uncovers-huge-expenditures-for-vytorin-cme/
The information emerged through a Senate investigation.
I'm glad that pharma is supporting health-care reform.
Showing posts with label Merck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Merck. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
MIXED MESSAGES ON GARDASIL
JAMA, FDA, CDC Speak in Many Voices
The Gardasil vaccine has been mired in controversy pretty since its introduction three years ago. Merck lobbied very hard to make the vaccine mandatory in many states, and very nearly succeeded in a number of them. Were it not for the arm-twisting/pocket-lining suggested by Merck's tactics, and the Vioxx legacy, the company would almost certainly have succeeded.
This week, we have heard a range of messages about the vaccine. JAMA reported on overall safety to date. The summary conclusion was that even the most serious events following administration of the vaccine--including about 30 cases of ALS--could not be causally linked to the vaccine. That said, a JAMA editorial raised the question of whether even this degree of risk was outweighed by the benefits of the vaccine. See
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/302/7/795
In the meantime, the same JAMA article chastised Merck for promotional tactics (same old, same old) particularly through various medical societies. See Fierce Pharma's summary at:
http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/jama-gardasil-safe-promos-questionable/2009-08-19
In the wake of all of this, both the FDA and CDC have pronounced the vaccine safe for use based on current data available. But essentially no one is pushing anymore for mandatory vaccination, as was the case two years ago.
The Gardasil vaccine has been mired in controversy pretty since its introduction three years ago. Merck lobbied very hard to make the vaccine mandatory in many states, and very nearly succeeded in a number of them. Were it not for the arm-twisting/pocket-lining suggested by Merck's tactics, and the Vioxx legacy, the company would almost certainly have succeeded.
This week, we have heard a range of messages about the vaccine. JAMA reported on overall safety to date. The summary conclusion was that even the most serious events following administration of the vaccine--including about 30 cases of ALS--could not be causally linked to the vaccine. That said, a JAMA editorial raised the question of whether even this degree of risk was outweighed by the benefits of the vaccine. See
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/302/7/795
In the meantime, the same JAMA article chastised Merck for promotional tactics (same old, same old) particularly through various medical societies. See Fierce Pharma's summary at:
http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/jama-gardasil-safe-promos-questionable/2009-08-19
In the wake of all of this, both the FDA and CDC have pronounced the vaccine safe for use based on current data available. But essentially no one is pushing anymore for mandatory vaccination, as was the case two years ago.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
MERCK TRIES PAY FOR PERFORMANCE DRUG COST
As reported by the New York Times today -
Drug Deals Tie Prices to How Well Patients Do
According to New York Times -
An interesting concept that has been tried in other countries. Is this the way to go? Could this initiate the effective top down directive that permeates the corporate culture or just another gimmick to bolster sales?
If this practice became common place what might it mean to the pharmaceutical landscape?
Drug Deals Tie Prices to How Well Patients Do
According to New York Times -
"In a deal expected to be announced Thursday, Merck
has agreed to peg what the insurer Cigna
pays for the diabetes
drugs Januvia and Janumet to how well Type
2 diabetes patients are able to control their blood sugar. "
An interesting concept that has been tried in other countries. Is this the way to go? Could this initiate the effective top down directive that permeates the corporate culture or just another gimmick to bolster sales?
If this practice became common place what might it mean to the pharmaceutical landscape?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
SOCIOPATHY AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE IN PHARMA
A Note on Pharmaporn
Every few days, it seems we get a new one-liner from the annals of trial materials. “We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live,” said a Merck insider about Vioxx critics. “"Thus far, we have buried Trials 15, 31, 56…”, writes John at AstraZeneca. Trial 15, as it turns out, showed the diabetic risks of Seroquel. This is the same study about which we also read company players congratulating each other for their “smoke and mirrors” success in downplaying its significance.
The examples go on. Endlessly. But what I am always left with is the question of what we do with such “material.” All the defense arguments have a degree of truth. It would be a rare company (or individual) who didn’t write a bad-looking email at some point. Materials of this sort sometimes reveal what is a widely shared marketing plan. At other times, they may represent the views of a lone sociopath.
Perhaps the most recurring theme—when the issue of fraud or cover-up is broached in these communications—is that other companies are doing it “so why shouldn’t we.” All of us learned from our mothers about what “just because others are doing it” means. The relevance here is the question of whether these assertions are rationalizations (and, inevitably, self-fulfilling) and/or whether they represent an accurate snapshot of standard industry practice, at least in the marketing-of-blockbusters arena.
Understandably, people from within industry almost never comment on this question. That was true on Pharmalot when there was plenty of opportunity. Again, this makes sense for all the relevant reasons—the great majority of people in a company have no involvement with such goings-on; there is the anticipation of vicious push-back by critics; there is probably also the anticipation of sanctions from within the company if one’s identity is uncovered.
The rest of us are left with the question of what to make of these bits and pieces. Like porn of other kinds, there is undeniably a certain titillation in the face other people’s corruption. Many of us carry an “inner church lady.”
But lives are, indeed, on the line. My guess is that nothing good will happen to change these aspects of industry short of revulsion within companies robust enough to clean up their scuz. Strongly as I oppose preemption, I think that it will take whistleblowers, not private plaintiffs, to do the job. Only insiders can distinguish, and document, what represents the views of lone cowpokes versus the orchestrated strategy of a significant coterie of senior management.
Unfortunately, the latter appears to be the most common.
Every few days, it seems we get a new one-liner from the annals of trial materials. “We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live,” said a Merck insider about Vioxx critics. “"Thus far, we have buried Trials 15, 31, 56…”, writes John at AstraZeneca. Trial 15, as it turns out, showed the diabetic risks of Seroquel. This is the same study about which we also read company players congratulating each other for their “smoke and mirrors” success in downplaying its significance.
The examples go on. Endlessly. But what I am always left with is the question of what we do with such “material.” All the defense arguments have a degree of truth. It would be a rare company (or individual) who didn’t write a bad-looking email at some point. Materials of this sort sometimes reveal what is a widely shared marketing plan. At other times, they may represent the views of a lone sociopath.
Perhaps the most recurring theme—when the issue of fraud or cover-up is broached in these communications—is that other companies are doing it “so why shouldn’t we.” All of us learned from our mothers about what “just because others are doing it” means. The relevance here is the question of whether these assertions are rationalizations (and, inevitably, self-fulfilling) and/or whether they represent an accurate snapshot of standard industry practice, at least in the marketing-of-blockbusters arena.
Understandably, people from within industry almost never comment on this question. That was true on Pharmalot when there was plenty of opportunity. Again, this makes sense for all the relevant reasons—the great majority of people in a company have no involvement with such goings-on; there is the anticipation of vicious push-back by critics; there is probably also the anticipation of sanctions from within the company if one’s identity is uncovered.
The rest of us are left with the question of what to make of these bits and pieces. Like porn of other kinds, there is undeniably a certain titillation in the face other people’s corruption. Many of us carry an “inner church lady.”
But lives are, indeed, on the line. My guess is that nothing good will happen to change these aspects of industry short of revulsion within companies robust enough to clean up their scuz. Strongly as I oppose preemption, I think that it will take whistleblowers, not private plaintiffs, to do the job. Only insiders can distinguish, and document, what represents the views of lone cowpokes versus the orchestrated strategy of a significant coterie of senior management.
Unfortunately, the latter appears to be the most common.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
MERCK'S HIT LIST
Seek Them Out, Do Them In
A very large hat tip to our Inspired Leader's Twitter, which carried this news from Australia's current Vioxx trial. Excerpt provided...It ain't pretty.
Vioxx maker Merck and Co drew up doctor hit list
Milanda Rout April 01, 2009
Article from: The Australian
AN international drug company made a hit list of doctors who had to be "neutralised" or discredited because they criticised the anti-arthritis drug the pharmaceutical giant produced.
Staff at US company Merck &Co emailed each other about the list of doctors - mainly researchers and academics - who had been negative about the drug Vioxx or Merck and a recommended course of action.
The email, which came out in the Federal Court in Melbourne yesterday as part of a class action against the drug company, included the words "neutralise", "neutralised" or "discredit" against some of the doctors' names.
It is also alleged the company used intimidation tactics against critical researchers, including dropping hints it would stop funding to institutions and claims it interfered with academic appointments.
"We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live," a Merck employee wrote, according to an email excerpt read to the court by Julian Burnside QC, acting for the plaintiff.
Merck & Co and its Australian subsidiary, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme, are being sued for compensation by more than 1000 Australians, who claim they suffered heart attacks or strokes as a result of Vioxx. ......
A very large hat tip to our Inspired Leader's Twitter, which carried this news from Australia's current Vioxx trial. Excerpt provided...It ain't pretty.
Vioxx maker Merck and Co drew up doctor hit list
Milanda Rout April 01, 2009
Article from: The Australian
AN international drug company made a hit list of doctors who had to be "neutralised" or discredited because they criticised the anti-arthritis drug the pharmaceutical giant produced.
Staff at US company Merck &Co emailed each other about the list of doctors - mainly researchers and academics - who had been negative about the drug Vioxx or Merck and a recommended course of action.
The email, which came out in the Federal Court in Melbourne yesterday as part of a class action against the drug company, included the words "neutralise", "neutralised" or "discredit" against some of the doctors' names.
It is also alleged the company used intimidation tactics against critical researchers, including dropping hints it would stop funding to institutions and claims it interfered with academic appointments.
"We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live," a Merck employee wrote, according to an email excerpt read to the court by Julian Burnside QC, acting for the plaintiff.
Merck & Co and its Australian subsidiary, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme, are being sued for compensation by more than 1000 Australians, who claim they suffered heart attacks or strokes as a result of Vioxx. ......
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Merck and Schering-Plough – sign o’ the times...
Monday morning heralded the merger/buy out of Merck over Schering-Plough.
The various news articles are stating that Merck needed to refresh it’s portfolio and pipeline and Schering has quite a bit to offer as well as many products on long term patent protection. There is quite a bit of synergy between the two and of course they have been “test” dating on a few cholesterol products lately....
Industry insiders say that we should keep our eyes on Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Sanofi Aventis (ranked number one in Europe and third largest in the world by some industry standards) as they seem to all be on the hunt for acquisitions.
Monday’s business deal now makes Merck the number 2 Pharmaceutical company. Stay tuned for an updated list of rankings...
There will be significant job losses and some numbers being bandied about are about 16,000 jobs.
These are tough times.
The question is which jobs will go, which jobs are seen as redundant?
Share your thoughts and opinions.
The various news articles are stating that Merck needed to refresh it’s portfolio and pipeline and Schering has quite a bit to offer as well as many products on long term patent protection. There is quite a bit of synergy between the two and of course they have been “test” dating on a few cholesterol products lately....
Industry insiders say that we should keep our eyes on Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Sanofi Aventis (ranked number one in Europe and third largest in the world by some industry standards) as they seem to all be on the hunt for acquisitions.
Monday’s business deal now makes Merck the number 2 Pharmaceutical company. Stay tuned for an updated list of rankings...
There will be significant job losses and some numbers being bandied about are about 16,000 jobs.
These are tough times.
The question is which jobs will go, which jobs are seen as redundant?
Share your thoughts and opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)