Comments on: Pfizer Sales Reps Downplay Chantix Side Effects

By: Atlex

Atlex — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:21:08 +0000

I don’t think that the blogging posts tell us much; the spikes are highly correlated with media attention. Moreover, some of it is likely being orchestrated (trial attorneys, tobacco industry–take your pick). However, I would argue that the drug will end up as a marginal drug for a combination of reasons. First, are there neuropsychiatric AEs? Very likely, but they are probably not as common as the perception being developed. (Are there other serious AEs? Probably not.) Second, as a society, we tend to far overblow risks vs. benefits of most everything. Thus, the neuropsychiatric AEs will probably scare off most smokers, who, in reality, may not really want to quit. In the end, while the drug might some day be taken off the market, the more likely scenario is that it will become an occasionally used marginal product.

In the end, this is probably a pretty good drug (not a panacea for smoking) with a solidly positive risk vs. benefit ratio. But a series of events and the current state of the public’s view of medication will doom the product.

Atlex

By: John Q

John Q — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:13:24 +0000

John R. Polito, Here! here! As one can only see by the number of post per Chantix blogs that well, “Houston we have a problem”.

No amount of roundtable discussions from Pfizer can turn this monster around. No amount of spin from reps(paid consultants or otherwise) can stop this Chantix story from imploding.

What do you think Atlex?

By: Atlex

Atlex — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:26:35 +0000

JRP,

Where is this blog you are referring to?

Atlex

By: Insider

Insider — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:19:29 +0000

http://pharmagossip.blogspot.com/2008/06/pfizer-chantix-hows-positive-pr-push.html

Looks like more trouble!

By: John R. Polito

John R. Polito — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:29:22 +0000

What I find disturbing are Pfizer consultants writing Internet blogs advising physicians and patients without disclosing that they are currently both paid Pfizer consultants and members of Pfizer’s speakers’ bureau. At least in face-to-face presentations the relationship is known and disclosed. Sadly, it will probably require new federal law if we want financial relationship transparency during prescription medication safety or effectiveness presentations.

By: HorusCat

HorusCat — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:22:44 +0000

Ed,
I think it is useful to note that this pattern of a crescendo leading into a diminuendo when talking about a particular AE or group of AEs is the rule, not the exception. You talk and talk about it, and then there’s not a whole lot left to say. (Actually, come to think of it, that can be the case with almost all of what drug reps have to say!:+)) I sold one drug that received a tremendous amount of negative press (thanks to the competition) as it launched. We talked about it–and then we didn’t. The possible AE didn’t go away; we just didn’t have anything to add.

By: John

John — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:18:43 +0000

Thanks Ed. I just didn’t expect them (ImpactRX) to turn over that data to anyone but the Company/manufacturer or Congress/FDA. But you’re “the” Ed Silverman, so I should have known better.

By: Ed Silverman

Ed Silverman — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:28:11 +0000

Hi John,

Sorry for the belated reply on the Chantix data. I thought I replied earlier, but obviously didn’t do so. Anyway, as indicated, the data comes from ImpactRx, which tracks the efforts sales reps are making to win over docs and the kind of attention docs are giving sales reps. And since I was curious to learn more about the detailing, I thought to call Impact, which was kind enough to define the activity.

Hope this helps,
ed

By: John

John — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:26:30 +0000

Ed,

You’re amazing. Where did you get this stuff?