Comments on: Pfizer’s Desperate Times & Desperate Measures

By: Pharma Monkey

Pharma Monkey — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:54:03 +0000

Steve,

A lot of talented folks from the companies that Pfizer ‘distroyed’ are still around - and we are engaged in serious high quality research - or rather we would like to be - if the enlightened ones in charge give us a breather from the ceaseless ‘change’ and endless restructuring. But don’t worry - it looks like many of us are about to hit the proverbial road, without having the equally proverbial door hit us on the way out.

The good news is that most of the adorable and super-smart senior managers are still going to continue guiding the good ship Pfizer.

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:20:49 +0000

While R&D is the life blood of any Pharma company, it has not been the case at Pfizer. Pfizer has been pumping about $8 B annually into R&D with very little to show for it. So they could easily make cuts in R&D with little negative impact. Pfizer’s R&D organization is a joke. The only thing they have come up with of any commercial significance in the last 10 years is Viagra and that was a mistake. Parmacia and Warner Lambert had better R&D organizations, but Pfizer closed them down (obviously the wrong choice). This company’s leadership does not have a clue how to turn the company around. That is why they took over two of the best Pharma companies of the last decade and distroyed them.

By: Pharma Monkey

Pharma Monkey — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 12:58:09 +0000

PFE is not well. Clearly you and I want to believe in this once-great company, but we’ve got to face the facts:

The current ‘restructuring’ is nothing more than a musical chairs game for the management. Note that reorganizations, transformations, and restructurings have occurred at PFE non-stop for at least the last five years. The result of this is a completely demoralized work force which does not believe in anything that senior management says and is just hanging on for dear life. The internal PFE pipeline is idling until reorganizations stop for at least three years (which has not happened so far!).

Cost cuts come primarily from reductions in R&D - a very dangerous long-term strategy that compromises PFE’s long-term potential to discover new compounds. Political pressure inside the company (and not cool reason) dictates what direction the cuts take (the recent Ann Arbor exit is a great example of this).

Third phase pipeline is full of stuff that has either low chances for success or a very low profit margin. Numbers of PIII compounds mean nothing in themselves - you have to analyze what these compounds represent.

PFE’s interest in biologics is five years too late - and is driven on without much understanding of what it takes to generate successful biological therapeutics. The only hope PFE has to succeed in this arena is to acquire a major player.

By: JP

JP — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 02:43:16 +0000

I figure I could leave the clinic an hour early a couple days a week and do my own reading on new products, indications, etc if I devoted no time to reps in the office. Hard to ignore the reality of it.

By: Kirby

Kirby — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 01:11:22 +0000

Dear James,
That is what blows my mind. Why aren’t doctors doing their own research in reading package inserts and unbiased data? I know their time is stretched in lots of different directions…but come on, here! Why would a doctor take the word of a 24 year old beauty queen who has NO RESPECT for patients? Her only interest is shopping at Ann Taylor or getting highlights in her hair at 3pm.

Like the lady who had heart problems with Celebrex. Well if Viox had problems wouldn’t it be highly probable that a drug in the same class would have issues as well? If I were a physician, I would NEVER prescribe Celebrex. There are too many other options, like Mobic for example that haven’t had these sorts of issues.

By: James R

James R — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:07:52 +0000

JD, I agree with that “marketing” studies are biased. I have lost confidence with the FDA, but I have also lost confidence in some MD’s. That’s what so sad, I would like to think that MD’s are researching all studies/trials for all these new drugs before they prescribe them.

By: JD

JD — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:00:03 +0000

Daniel,
Of course their information is biased, they are sales representatives afterall. The real question is what type of data are they showing us. I will not let a rep show me a study that is considered a “marketing study”, which is what you refer to. Most reps, in fact, happen to have studies that reflect their data from their respective package inserts. I find this credible, non-biased data, as the FDA is in control of what data goes into the PI and bases that drugs indications off of it. It looks like you have lost the confidence in the FDA, there are definate needs of reform but what other governing agency do we currently have?

By: Daniel Guild

Daniel Guild — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:33:21 +0000

Perhaps one should consider that corporate drug pushers may not be the best source of information, given their vested interest to make sales higher. In fact, the data provided is not based on scientific research, it comes from marketing company’s.
I’m sure they won’t tell you about the fact that clinical trials are rigged in order to create an artificial conclusion that the drugs are safe.
For example, risperdal. The placebo group was a bunch of sick people that were on antipsychotic drugs. This is clearly not adhering to scientific integrity. 4 people died in the risperdal trial (non-placebo) versus one person in the so-called placebo group.
Don’t count on the FDA to protect us.

By: Doug Bremner MD

Doug Bremner MD — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:05:49 +0000

One might consider that there is a ceiling to the ability of prescription medications to treat common conditions, e.g. in my field that it is hard to argue that new antipsychotics are better than ones developed 20 or even 40 years ago, so that maybe pharma should focus on organized downsizing, rather than waiting for disaster to strike. There will always be a market for these drugs, but maybe not blockbusters, unless there is some fundamental breakthrough in research (i.e. not just more me too drugs).

By: JD

JD — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:00:02 +0000

As a prescriber, I find the service my Pfizer reps as a very valuable service. Pfizer has always produced great medicine and offered me CME opportunities. Their reps have always been knowledgable and professional in my office. We will miss the ones that get cut and their services. To the prescriber above, the reality is that we are seeing less and less reps every year. The days of blockbuster drugs are over and that means reps days are limited. I especially find their samples helpful for patients with chronic conditions so they must not occur any out-of-pocket costs for a medicine that may not work for them. I am also a HUGE fan of Wal-Mart’s $4 generic programs!