Which Oncology Meds Do Sales Reps Push The Most?
4 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // February 22nd, 2011 // 9:08 am
Oncology is a big market and getting bigger, of course, but which drugmaker ranks highest is most effective in reaching oncologists? A recent poll of 475 medical and hematological oncologists found that Novartis commands a leading 12.5 share of details, although its position slipped slightly from the previous year, while Roche jumped from 10 percent to 12 percent thanks to combining sales teams with Genentech.
Meanwhile, Sanofi-Aventis slid from 8 percent to about 6.5 percent thanks to looming patent expirations for Taxotere and Eloxatin, according to ImpactRx, a market research firm. In line with the results, Genentech tied with OSI Pharmaceuticals as the drugmaker with a top tier sales force, followed by Biogen Idec, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Celgene (here is the report).
For the second year in a row, the drug with the largest number of details was Lilly’s Alimta, which is used to treat advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Roche and Genentech’s Avastin, which is approved to treat bowel, lung, brain and kidney cancers, again came in second, although the FDA wants to rescind the breast cancer indication, suggesting the detailing mix may change (back story). The figures, by the way, are through November 2010 and, please note, we have changed the headline that was published earlier.
frank
Punching Headline but story represents whats wrong with the pharma scorecard… claiming success by how much is done vs how well its done. The quantity race- details, people, etc- got us in a low-value perception cycle. Good to see the reality of several small co’s that are delivering high-value interactions with Onc.’s that wouldn’t make it to this silly survey “ranking”.
Ed Silverman
Hi Frank,
Thanks for the note and you make a good point. I agree that a large number of details does not automatically translate into an effective campaign. All the more reason to have this kind of discussion about the value of such rankings and the extent to which useful information can be gleaned.
Regards
Ed
Paul
Sorry Ed. I think this means you need to change the heading because it is misleading relative to what you report. I think it is inappropriate do conclude one thing when the report deals with something else altogether.
There will always be a number one, two, three etc. On everything, including details. But that does not say anything is excessive…just the ranking order.
May be true that there is too much activity out there, but that is not what this report is intended to show.
Ed Silverman
Hi Paul
Thanks for the note and yes, I have massaged the lead sentence to hopefully more accurately reflect the gist of the report. Apologies for the earlier language. I think the headline does reflect correctly the portion of the report that discusses top tier rankings, although since I did not emphasize that until later in the post, I agree the headline can give an alternative impression. Appreciate the comment.
Regards
Ed