Pfizer’s Exubera: $4M In Sales! Bongs Away!
10 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // July 19th, 2007 // 7:48 am
The troubled inhaled insulin device continues to astonish. Take Jim Reddoch, a biotech analyst at Friedman Billings Ramsey who tracks Nektar Therapeutics, which supplies Pfizer with the diabetic bong. Here’s what he wrote in an investor note this morning:
“Yesterday, Pfizer broke out Exubera sales for the first time, and now we know why it took this long: Exubera only sold $4 million in 2Q. This for a product that has been on the market for six quarters. We thought the number was missing a zero at first; we were at $63M for the quarter.”
He notes that Pfizer has just launched an extensive DTC campaign: “Now that it is clear that endocrinologists have passed, it is going straight to the customer. We think this may produce an uptick, but Exubera sales are on a whole different trajectory than we and the Street had been modeling.” Our thought: Yes, that would appear to be straight down. And the cost of a few TV ads will easily eclipse recent sales. What a promotional bargain.
“We lowered our Exubera estimates dramatically for 2007-2010; we now forecast 2007 worldwide sales of $20 million, down from $296 million and peak sales in 2012 of $326 million from $1.4 billion.” And just to emphasize the extent to which the street has given up on Exubera, Reddoch notes that “there were no Exubera questions on the Pfizer (analyst conference) call yesterday.”
Patrick
As a former contractor at the Terre Haute,IN Pfizer plant who worked on Exubra manufacturing,this comes as no big surprise.FDA requirements have kept this product off the consumer shelves for far too long.The waiting period for FDA product launch here in the United States basically killed Exubra in many ways.Imagine a production line in full operation at the end of which is a huge dumpster and you have Exubra.Research and development costs which are eventually passed on to the consumer that has to absorb that waiting period for a product which was available and in production 3 years ago.Instead , contract workers were laid off until the “White Elephant” got FDA’s blessing.
Now ,there are more suitable,less expensive solutions geared to overtake Exubra available from the European market.This and other examples I could give just makes me too angry to continue,especially when Terre Haute Americans are the highest bankruptcy victims in America.
Patrick Fournier
Friarfox LLC
Ed Silverman
Hi Patrick
I understand your frustration. Since Exubera became available, it’s been tagged because of the ‘bong’ resemblance. But you raise a whole different issue, and it’s an important one.
Thanks for writing in,
ed
Laurie
Am I missing something….why would you have a manufacturing plant waiting to produce a drug that hasn’t even recieved FDA approval? Wouldn’t you get the approval first? What if the drug never gets approved?
sid
Laurie,
Welcome to pharma!
Believe it or not, when you apply for a drug to be approved, the FDA actually wants to verify that you are making it and the plant you are making it in. They even want to check things like purity, sterility, and things like that.
Welcome to another expense of pharma.
Also, let’s say the predictions on Exubra were correct. So you get a drug approved, and then tell the anxious patients - we’ll be done with the plant in a few years. Don’t worry they will give us extra time on the patent.
Dr. Remulac
Sid - sorry to hear about the plight of you and the others at the Terre Haute plant, but thank you for pointing out something that the general public doesn’t fully understand. Too many in the US who want to criticize pharma for everything don’t realize the many hoops that they have to jump through just to be able to market a drug, and that affects the livelihoods of many hardworking people. Developing/manufacturing drugs is a hugely expensive endeavor, and the vast bulk of the spending comes years before the drug is even approved. Too many people think pharma is a bunch of fly-by-nights who get a license to print money when a drug is approved. It typically takes a drug company at least 5 years post-marketing to recup their development costs, not to mention to overcome all the opportunity costs associated with marketing/selling after approval.
pharma giles
The whole story of Exubera is one of a rubbish idea supported by rubbish market research. It’s a triumph only of desperation over common sense and it’s miserable failure has been widely predicted by pundits since before its launch.
Whining about sunk costs and regulatory barriers doesn’t change the fact that Exubera should never have had money wasted on it in the first place.
End of story…
Dr. Remulac
I agree! Very much like the Accomplia/Zimulti debacle. Case studies in bad decision-making by the powers that be.
sid
pharma g,
agreed (now). But could you really say that 3 years ago. I was certainly one not thinking we had to have a new insulin, but I would have bet my house that Pfizer could have done better than this.
I thought this would have done reasonably well. And no one is hold a fund raiser for Pfizer, but it does show the pitfalls and increasing difficulty in getting a drug to market and successful. Again, to agree with Reality - the whole industry isn’t sitting around printing money and bad studies.
Lee
One thing that has not been mentioned is a what I believe is a secondary intent behind Exubera. Novel Approach.
It’s far too easy for generic companies to copy tablets, liquids and various other standard delivery forms (gels, ointments etc.), however, novel approaches to disease management like Exubera can help a big company ensure it’s R&D dollars go further.
Generics run lean and mean (usually) and don’t have the funds to invest in the technology required to produce something such as Exubera. I’ve got friends who worked on the generic side and have heard the stories of patent challenges due to a loophole (then asking the big company for a payoff not to produce the drug). So, I can see why the drug was initially pursued, but I think a lot of people may have had bigger hopes and dreams for the drug than what was feasible. Time will tell if it will ever take off, but I’m sure big pharma will continue to look for novel approaches to drugs to avoid competition.
Key example is Allergan’s Botox (used to work for that company as well). They enjoyed exclusivity in the market, and I believe they still do, because the process to produce Botox was not a simple compound and fill it process.
I’m hoping the drug succeeds as I work for the operations group, but timew ill tell.
Just my 2 cents…
qetzal
pharma giles, re:
“The whole story of Exubera is one of a rubbish idea supported by rubbish market research.”
That’s a provocative statement. I agree there are major problems with the product that resulted from the idea, but I’m curious why you think the fundamental idea itself is rubbish?
Suppose Exubera were as small, simple, and discreet as an asthma inhaler. Wouldn’t that likely be a pretty successful product?
No, in case you’re wondering, I don’t work for any of the other groups developing inhaled insulin. I’m just curious why you think the idea itself is flawed.