« January 2008 | Main | March 2008 »
February 28, 2008
Pharma Companies Integrate Innovative Drug Delivery Methods into Product Planning
Among the many challenges faced by the pharmaceutical industry, patient compliance looms large as a post-launch difficulty in sustaining product sales. Compliance tends to be an ongoing issue, regardless of a product's efficacy. Often, patients that are initially won over by a treatment stop taking their medications shortly after visiting the doctor. The sad truth is, many patients simply find their dosage regimens to be too inconvenient or too painful.
Historically, treatment delivery channels have been little more than an afterthought for pharma. Develop a drug first, then determine an acceptable delivery channel, the process went. Now, though, realizing that dosage convenience and frequency plays a large role in the willingness of patients to stick to their treatment regimens, the industry has responded by developing products with patient compliance in mind. In the world of proteins, for example, many pharma and biotech companies - through partnerships with medical device innovators - are making the switch from traditional injections to alternative delivery methods like micro-needle patches, oral doses and nasal sprays. The idea is to improve ease of use without sacrificing a treatment's efficacy.
Many of the companies undertaking such new projects are small, but their concept would make big differences in patients' lives. Azaya Therapeutics, for one, is developing a compound using what is called Protein Stabilized Nanoparticle (PSN) technology. While I resist the urge to plug one of my favorite sci-fi movies, suffice to say that this technology aims to eliminate some of the dangerous side-effects associated with oncology drugs such as Sanofi Aventis's Taxotere (although if you're curious, the company does have an explanatory video about PSN on its website). By partnering with emerging companies like Azaya early on in product development, long-established pharma and biotech companies can position themselves to take full advantage of the newest drug delivery technologies.
Despite the exciting prospects of these new and more convenient delivery mechanisms, pharma still has a long way to go in making them palatable to patients. Pfizer's Exubera is one example of a failed attempt at a more patient-friendly delivery method. The potential was definitely there: a diabetes treatment in the form of an insulin nasal spray. No more pesky needles. Unfortunately the inhaler proved to be quite large and inconvenient to transport - some have described it as bulky. End result? The inhaler ended up being less attractive than the alternative of giving oneself a shot.
Though there are sure to be more bumps along the way, I am eager to see pharma's future efforts on the path to less painful, more convenient ways to take medication.
Posted by Haley Wynn at 06:03 PM | Comments (0)
February 13, 2008
Pharma Companies Reexamine R&D Processes
The pharmaceutical industry is fully aware that not as many drugs are making it to market and product pipelines are not as robust as they once were. To respond to this challenge many pharmaceutical companies have reexamined their market strategies and taken a long hard look at their R&D processes. Among these is AstraZeneca. The December 2007 issue of PharmaExec includes an interview with AZ's head of Global Marketing, John Patterson, who explained some of the changes the company has made to adapt to the new R&D frontier. As Patterson pointed out, there are many factors behind trend of fewer drug approvals in recent years, including a different acceptance of what is a reasonable risk/benefit ratio for a treatment.
In the article, "R&D Innovation: Climbing Out", Patterson explained a new R&D regimen that he has implemented at AZ - Quality on Time. The core basis of this outlook is to take a hard look at each molecule and be more honest and upfront from the earliest stages of development about potential risks and benefits. The goal is to raise the quality of the molecules the company pursues which in the long run will help AZ avoid spend much less time and money on poor molecules.
The second main factor to the Quality on Time regimen is saving time - not in a way that would put patient safety at risk - but in making better go/no-go decisions early on so that the company can move forward more quickly and make investments with more calculated risks. In fact, the goal of the new R&D process is to get drugs developed and approved within eight years - a radical improvement from AZ's historic average timeline of 11 years (currently the company estimates it is running at about nine years).
AstraZeneca appears to be taking large steps in the right direction. Instead of putting more and more molecules into the development pipeline for the sake of volume, the company is concentrating on the ones that are most likely to come to fruition and provide valuable revenue streams for the company. This school of thought appears to be the right way of looking at developing new pharmaceutical treatments going forward - focus on quality not volume.
Another trend Patterson pointed out is that pharmaceutical companies are going to become more flexible in seeking new ways to acquire quality molecules - either through partnerships or buyouts. This trend is evident; Pfizer's purchase of biotech CovX underscores this strategy in play. Pharmaceutical companies have been clever enough to discover amazing, life-saving treatments so it is not surprising that companies are now adapting their organizations and processes to overcome market factors. AstraZeneca is on the right track - quality will be the key to success.
Posted by Amanda Zuniga at 02:12 PM | Comments (0)
February 08, 2008
Canadian Pharmaceutical Sales Groups Not Yet Following US Reductions in Mirroring
When facing tremendous access issues in the US market, many of the industry's most respected sales forces made the move to decrease mirroring of reps and create more personalized relationships with their doctors. Some companies even cut the number of different reps responsible for calling on each target from four or five to one or two.
While there is a hint of movement by companies in the Canadian market to decrease mirroring and create more personalized relationships with doctors, there is not the industry-wide momentum that is starting to show in the US market.
In a Cutting Edge Information report based on the Canadian market, participating companies revealed that doctors in their top three primary care tiers will generally have more than one rep assigned to call on them. Two top 10 pharmaceutical companies that participated assign as many as five or six different reps to their top-level general practitioners.
In a similar study performed by Cutting Edge Information on the US market, sales force powerhouses reported that they have found tremendous success at gaining access to their targets by reducing the mirroring of forces. In fact, many of the larger US companies have taken a two-rep per-doctor approach. Pfizer reduced the number of reps calling on each of its targets to two. Eli Lilly and Wyeth reportedly shrank the number of reps responsible for each doctor in their forces as well.
According to interviewees, rather than seeing reductions in the percentage of US doctors that reps get to detail, these companies are seeing increases. Likewise, they are seeing increases in the amount of time reps get with doctors once they get face-to-face.
According to one participant in the US study, recent internal figures show that his company's realignment program is yielding more time with physicians and reports of increasing accessibility to doctors from reps in the 5% to 10% range. The company is also receiving overwhelmingly positive feedback from targets. With fewer reps coming to visit, the doctors actually remember their reps' names. It is also easier for doctors to know who to call for samples or information when it is needed for patients or their own education.
The program pays other dividends as well. First it vastly reduces costs. Companies can "trim the fat" and become more efficient with their calls. Additionally, it builds accountability back into sales.
When "pods" of reps call on physicians, it is difficult to discern who is making an impact and who is perhaps not pulling their weight. With only one or two reps responsible for each physician, success or failure is easy to assign.
When reps have ownership and accountability over their accounts, they are also more likely to spend time finding ways to get to doctors than they would in a pod setting. They take the time to actually work at it rather than just dropping off samples and moving on.
Again, not all the major players in the Canadian market have indicated that they intend to reduce mirrored forces as of yet. However, the reported success of many US giants might suggest that it is worth examining more closely.
Posted by David Richardson at 07:33 AM | Comments (0)