Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Marketing trials - should we be surprised?

So, Novartis is going after AZ by setting up an open label breast cancer trial and the news is all over the WSJ and on-line news sheets. Is this such a surprise, and aren't we always hearing that trials are much better when they are a direct comparison rather than simply placebo-based?

I think that we are going to see many more of this type of trial, both open and closed label, so that a true understanding of the comparison of leading compounds can be assessed. Of course, the real problem is that the company conducting the trial has a very clear interest in the results, and so comparisons will likely only be started when they know the result is going to come out in their favour. This also would explain pre-emptive negative comments (like those already made by AZ in this case).

But do these trials really help the cause of improving medicine delivery? If so, shouldn't the regulatory authorities (or reimbursement bodies) be insisting on more of this kind of thing? If it is just a marketing ploy (not that I'm against that in principle), is there not a danger of yet more misinformation getting into the public domain, further damaging the reputation and standing of our battered industry?

My sense is that brand-on-brand comparisons are here in a small way and will become a bigger and bigger feature of post-marketing activity. The stakes are so high and rewards so great that the company with the better product will move on this as fast as they can and we shall see many more. I just hope they are handled properly, and well communicated when completed - or we could all be in for another wave of bad press and possibly yet more regulation.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Big pharma acquisitions

If you accept the argument that big pharma needs more R&D productivity (and I'm not aware of an industry watcher that doesn't agree), and we agree that all the big companies are doing all they can to pursue in-licensing and acquisition from smaller companies, then we must accept that further big-scale acquisitions must be around the corner. We hear today that AZ are on the hunt; rumors have always abounded regarding AZ and GSK (although I don't see it happening just yet), SP must be worried now that generic flonase disrupts their respiratory strategy, and I've already talked about Merck - but who is buying?

Pfizer are looking to sell their OTC operations and have to be thinking about further acquisition to keep their needle moving. sanofi-aventis should now be sufficiently stable to be thinking about making a move and BMS does look like an interesting option for them. I think everybody knows that J&J are always looking - but rarely for a big company. So in my mind the real dark horses are the other European stalwarts - Roche and Novartis. Both have very strong portfolios and pipelines - especially so long as "bird flu" keeps adding millions to the Roche sales, and Roche must be thrilled withe their share of Genentech. Merger of the two seems highly unlikely in the near term, but both could benefit greatly from a major US-based acquisition. We have to watch this space, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a major move by either (or both) the Swiss majors before this year is out - unless of course they see pricing and margin pressures in the US market making acquisitions elsewhere more attractive (of which, more later).