“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.

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…

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.

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…

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.

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

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