Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Happy Fourth of July | Main | Glaxo Asks the Eurocrats »

July 7, 2008

Pfizer's Prospects: Just Ducky

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I thought I’d start out the week by opening the mailbag for a recent reply to my posts about Pfizer’s research cutbacks. Here’s a perspective that you won’t get from me, at any rate:

You never surprise me of your uncanny ability to cast good news in a negative light. Pfizer has been a bloated company following its acquisitions of Warner Lambert and Pharmacia & Upjohn. The company should have rationalized its workforce, including sales, marketing, and most especially R&D, a long time ago. So, hopefully, you are correct and there will be massive layoffs in R&D soon. Why should Pfizer spend all that money on high risk, low probability of success R&D projects? Pfizer's belated cost-cutting will make it a leaner and more focused company. All the bad news is out there. Pfizer generates over $7 billion in free cash flow annually and pays a 7.4% dividend. Projected 2012 earnings per share (without Lipitor) are $2.05. So the stock is trading today fully discounting Lipitor and any possible good news the next 5 years. Does that really make sense to you? So keep up your trash talk, so to speak. Pfizer today is money in the bank. The lower you can drive the stock price, the greater the future return. I just love folks like you who help to create great buying opportunities. Are you certain you're not buying Pfizer as you trash talk??

My response? Well, I can reply on several levels. I’m actually going to skip the outraged how-dare-you stuff about what a great thing it is that all those research people are losing their jobs, though. Let’s just take that as having been delivered, because I think a lot of good invective would just be wasted, anyway. We’ll keep this on a strictly business level, since my correspondent is nothing if not all business.

And from a business perspective, he has the beginning of a point. As many readers can attest, Pfizer’s in-house research productivity has not been good – at least, nowhere near as good as it’s had to be to sustain a company as huge as Pfizer. (There’s the problem, actually – as I’ve said before, the one thing that certainly doesn’t scale when a company gets larger is research productivity). So from my correspondent’s perspective, what do you do with the underperforming units of a company? You lop ‘em off, like pruning a shrub to get rid of unsightly branches.

Of course, one branch of a bush is pretty much like another as far as the survival of the whole plant goes, but cutting the R&D out of an R&D organization is not without risks. A Pfizer investor might be excused for forgetting that, since most of the company’s money has been made off the research of other labs, but the Lipitors do have to come from somewhere, eventually. And try as I might, I just can’t see Pfizer buying its way out of its current troubles. So, why should Pfizer spend its money on those "high risk, low probability of success R&D projects"? Because that's the only kind of R&D projects there are.

Now, as to whether all the bad news is already out there, I won't speculate. But I do know that if I had a dollar for every time someone proclaimed that all the bad news was already in some company's stock, I wouldn't have to work for a living. I invite my correspondent, though, to take a look at the company's history before sitting back and trusting those EPS numbers from the past. Let's take a trip down memory lane, back to the days of 2002, when the analysts said that it was going to earn about $1.60 per share for that year, $1.84 in 2003, and $2.14 per share in 2004. Watch it go! And after that, hey, who knew. . .well, reality intervened on those forecasts, but by 2005, now, double-digit growth was on the way.

Let's take a look at the company's actual financials and stock price over that period. It isn't inspiring. Click around on that chart: if you'd bought Pfizer ten years ago, you would have been flat with the index until early 2004, but since then it's been a disaster. Now, like my correspondent, you may be able to look at this and figure that hey, what could go wrong, and that all the bad news just has to be in by now, and that those earnings forecasts will finally start working out. Or. . .

So let's file that statement away for future reference: "Pfizer today is money in the bank". That's July of 2008, folks, and if you'd like to put some of your cash down on that statement, PFE is available during normal trading hours. I'll sit this one out.

Comments (38) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Business and Markets | Drug Industry History


COMMENTS

1. Still Scared of Dinosaurs on July 7, 2008 9:10 AM writes...

Ever followed the message board of a biotech company for a few weeks or longer? You usually find a small cadre of unrepentant boosters, a few diehard bashers, and a large number of repentant boosters.

The bashers are usually in it for the fun of being provocative (they find it fun, at any rate) and the majority of boosters just want someone to explain when the price declines are going to stop.

The true believers, however, seek at every turn to defend their beloved property and, by extension, the entirety of Western Capitalism. Two signs of such posters are the belief that all bad news (especiallly a price drop) is really good news and the accusation that anyone pointing out any fault with the company is trying to talk the price down in order to buy more. Oh, they also accuse realists of being evil, usually right after external events have proven them to be horribly, horribly wrong.

Permalink to Comment

2. Joe on July 7, 2008 9:16 AM writes...

I love the amusement factor when a widget manufacturer declares that they are so beyond widgets that they don't need to employ widget designers anymore. Nobody need soil their pant legs in the mud any longer, apparently.

Permalink to Comment

3. Pharmar Brown on July 7, 2008 9:36 AM writes...

Mr. Lowes' commnet "So, why should Pfizer spend its money on those "high risk, low probability of success R&D projects"? Because that's the only kind of R&D projects there are." is absoloutely correct.

However, with increasing regulatory pressures, lack of meaningful intellectual property rights laws internationally and drug importation big Pharma really has no choice but to reduce operating expenses, the biggest of which is R&D.

Few companies have the capital and scientific resources that PFE does and that places the company in an unique postion to make forward looking acquisitions on products that when they go off patent, will still be incredibly difficlut and expensive to "generi-size" based on the technologies they are developed from (ex. Bio Therapuetics).

PFE short term will be flat. Longer term (5+ yr), "money in the bank".

Permalink to Comment

4. anonymous on July 7, 2008 10:07 AM writes...

Pharmar Brown:

Is that true? Is R&D the biggest operating expense Pfizer has? I was under the impression that it was a pretty small slice of the pie.

Permalink to Comment

5. Ty on July 7, 2008 10:22 AM writes...

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with chopping out the research. If Pfizer's not getting a good return on its own internal investments, then the logical thing to do is find an outside partner where your money is better spent. I do see value in Pfizer's development capacity, and a lot of small biotech/pharma would love to have access to Pfizer's clinical expertise. As a business model, a strictly clinical/marketing pharmaceutical company would survive, but obviously would not enjoy the same profits that Pfizer had becomed accustomed to.

Permalink to Comment

6. Pharmar Brown on July 7, 2008 10:33 AM writes...

anonymous,

Thank you - mean "one of the biggest".

I believe somewhere around $6 bill annually.

Permalink to Comment

7. The Pharmacoepidemiologist on July 7, 2008 10:39 AM writes...

Pfizer announced this morning the results of a trial showing that Lipitor had no effect in intimal-medial thickness. (Yes, the same measure which Vytorin had no effect on.) So, either that measure is a bad one to use--which is possible (and Vytorin comes back big time)--or Lipitor's effects are mediated in other ways. One thing no one has questioned is whether Lipitor brings down overall mortality. Looks to me like Pfizer has som s'plaining to do.

Permalink to Comment

8. Hap on July 7, 2008 10:45 AM writes...

Where do you get drugs? If you have no internal drug development (or poor internal development), and everyone knows it, then the cost of getting drugs from other companies increases (seeing as many drug comapnies are taking similar measures), because multiple companies are likely to bid on promising candidates. In addition, you're outsourcing the cheapest part of a drug's development and keeping the more expensive clinical trials in house - while that's sort of necessary, you might excuse me if one doesn't think that that tactic will work out financially.

Oh, and how do you find good candidates at other companies and effectively evaluate their drug potential? Without most of the people that can evaluate drugs (who are probably in R+D, anyway), you're playing high-stakes poker, but with no cameras to view the other guy's cards, or computers to know the probabilities of victory.

Permalink to Comment

9. Jose on July 7, 2008 11:09 AM writes...

To continue Hap's line of thinking, where are you going to buy the NCEs from if you buy and axe all the companies whose assets you want? The startup growth cycle is far slower than most people like to admit.

Permalink to Comment

10. Still Scared of Dinosaurs on July 7, 2008 11:27 AM writes...

Nobody said all the scientists at PFE are getting chopped. I'm sure they'll have plenty for evaluating inlicensing candidates. And the expensive deals tend to come with Phase 2 data, which needs a lot less input from the scientists.

Also, from my experience, the belief that bigger companies have better clinical expertise is way off the mark. After all, isn't a lot of the news PFE is making the results of failed trials? By far the best career move you can make in clinical development is to follow a really good MD to a really small company. Nice work if you can get it...

Permalink to Comment

11. RTW on July 7, 2008 11:36 AM writes...

Well - old Warner Lambert had a huge OTC and consumer products holding, which had substantial profit margins. Many such products where first in class... Cash cows you might say. In some countries they couldn't make and sell bubble gum fast enough! During lean years this provided Parke-Davis with their R&D budget. When Pfizer took over they got rid of these other businesses, so they had to rely entirely on income from block buster drug sales.

Personally I think the era of block buster one size fits all drugs is over. The model is not sustainable in the upcoming era of personalized medicine.

Permalink to Comment

12. Hap on July 7, 2008 12:09 PM writes...

There'll be chemists to evaluate inlicensing candidates, but I wonder for how long - I figure they would want to do R+D. In the long run, if drug development becomes a small company topic, there won't be so many chemists to do it because of the longer hours (thus shorter window of opportunity) and lower pay. When you remove a chunk of generation of chemists (a field which has a long development cycle), the effects are likely to be around awhile.

It would seem like Phase 2 data is when you would want really good data from scientists - you want drugs to fail early, without costing you a billion dollars to do so, if you can. If it's a crapshoot, then all you need is money and enough candidates (more money), but if the effects of a drug can be analyzed and chances of success improved, then right before Phase 3 trials (where you know the compound has an effect, and probably its partial mechanism) would seem to be the best spot to apply that knowledge.

Permalink to Comment

13. McPostdoc on July 7, 2008 12:18 PM writes...

Still Scared of Dinosaurs:
Ever followed the message board of a biotech company for a few weeks or longer? You usually find a small cadre of unrepentant boosters, a few diehard bashers, and a large number of repentant boosters.

Heh, you pretty much described every single message board on the internet.

Permalink to Comment

14. Daddy Warbux on July 7, 2008 2:05 PM writes...

You say that only one out of ten projects makes us money? Then do that one first, man!

Permalink to Comment

15. Still Scared of Dinosaurs on July 7, 2008 3:40 PM writes...

>> It would seem like Phase 2 data is when you would want really good data from scientists - you want drugs to fail early

We're probably looking at things from different angles. I'd say when a candidate for inlicensing is in Phase 2 we're well beyond the early failure stage. Also, I tend to restrict "scientists" in these discussions to mean "not clinical" - not MDs, statisticians (like me), and a number of others. It's very common to encounter oddities in the data such as lab changes or AEs that lead to questions for the "scientists" as to whether anything in the pre-clinical data suggests a mechanistic relationship. The same situations lead to questions of the Clin Ops folks as to whether anything about thr trial design or conduct produced an apparent effect.

I'd say it's slightly more common, however, that the clinical data is entirely consistent with prior knowledge and expectation but there's still a lot of unknown as to whether it all adds up to a favorable benefit/risk profile.

The "scientists" look at the same data the rest of us do and say, "Yup...tough call ya got there."

I'm playing with the word "scientist" a little because it feels pretentious to use a definition that includes me (insert Groucho quote here). I'm just trying to avoid a description that does include me but equates to "pseudoscientist."

Permalink to Comment

16. CMC guy on July 7, 2008 3:55 PM writes...

Splitting off the R side of R&D does not make sense to me for several reasons. The relative costs of R is much less than D portions so the later should be outsourced to "save costs" (which in many ways already is being done). The drug development major expense is in Clinical Studies (by-the-by has little to do with the chemistry burden). At most places the power/influence of Clinical departments are second only to Marketing, neither of which usually get pressured in same way to control costs (always "just part of doing business" as if R&D is not?) yet coulkd be coming in present climate.

Although model suggest may be able to "cherry pick" compounds to in-license at Phase 1, 2 or 3 there are no guarantees will succeed from there anymore than internal programs. Small companies also will be dealing with multiple parties (since seems to be direction of things) so can inflate their payment demands. Also depending on the capabilities/effort of small "R" company there may be extensive backfill needed to make viable (insufficient tox studies, poor process, supply chain gaps, reg issues etc, etc, etc.)

"Virtual" development has gained popularity but not sure achieving great costs benefits, expect perhaps not supporting as bloated an infrastructure. You still need people with key expertise’s working together plus ability to effectively manage vendors, both of which are in short supply. Unless people understand what come next or together then likely to get off course and hard to get back on track. Larger organizations can balance out departmental weaknesses more easily.

Similarly when challenges occur (and who here has run a problem free project?) having the correct resources available to address can make the difference between overcoming issue or total disaster. If hit a snag in process development being able to bring in additional heads already familiar with compounds & chemistry is helpful, typically more so than any outside academic consultant. Further as a process chemist it is essential to discuss what has/has not been tried by med chemists plus numerous other details that never wind up in reports/papers. Even if know will change route an exchange of ideas is valuable as often the med chemist has already scanned literature that may be useful.

I have argued previously we need balance throughout with strong leadership and long-term verses the short-term thinking. I think size can matter both too big and too small. Based on what we are seeing Pfizer is lacking with questionable moves thus my money is with Derek yet don't know any good bets out there. Maybe Daddy Warbux can tell which company can operate according to his mode of selection.

Permalink to Comment

17. Hap on July 7, 2008 4:32 PM writes...

What information do you get from Phase 2? I thought that Phase 2 gave you indication of efficacy. Does it give evidence of side effects or mechanism, or anything else that would be useful? When I wrote, I figured that Phase 2 is a better place to fail that Phase 3 - it probably isn't cheap in any case, but cheaper. I assumed that 10-20 failures at Phase 2 cost similarly to 1 Phase 3 failure, but that might not be accurate.

The other problem with everything seems to be clinical trials. People engage in clinical trials to find out if something works and get information on it, but the costs of the trials are high enough that one wants to know what the trials would tell you before engaging in them. Part of what seems to be motivating blockbusters is the cost of trials, which doesn't seem to scale down with the size of the target audience, or enough to outpace the smaller market, and so requires a larger market to recoup their costs. (This doesn't imply good things to me about the costs or viability of personalized medicine, IMO). There doesn't seem to be a good way to make trials cheaper without compromising safety, and without that drugs will have to be expensive to recoup their costs.

Permalink to Comment

18. milkshake on July 7, 2008 7:18 PM writes...

I dont agree - the typical blockbuster indications - diabetes, cardiovascular, arthritis, alzheimer - require very large trials to demonstrate that these drug are extremely safe and work fine over a long period of time. One idiosincratic reaction in 5000 patients can burry a great drug candidate.

Yet you have all kinds of nasty drugs used for cancer (hey, a little QTc prolongation + adrenal necrosis - no biggie!) since the patients won't take the chemo for decades, and the other available chemotherapy drugs have very narrow-margin toxicities as well.

Permalink to Comment

19. fat old man on July 7, 2008 7:21 PM writes...

I have a pessimistic view of the future of the our R&D industry because of the increasing research costs and overwhelming rules and regulations that we face. Some examples: 1)the endocrinologic and metabolic drugs advisory committee voted 14/2 on July 2 in favor of consucting long term cardiovascular outcome trials to rule out unacceptable CV risk for diabetes drugs. Clinical people tell me this could take thousands of patients (I did hear a figure of 30,000 patients but even I find that hard to believe)and 5 yrs. It would take quite a blockbuster to justify this cost. 2) If you work in process chemistry and want to be scared, read the new guidances on limits for genotoxic impurities from the EMEA. 1.5 micrograms dose per day for an impurity (even a potential impurity) that shows a structural alert (like DEREK) unless it is shown to be Ames negative. Just imagine the resources it will take to make these things and develop analytical methods to detect them at that level. 3) I even have trouble from our own Quality dept to release a batch of API that has 0.03% of a class 3 solvent (class 3 solvents have limits of 0.5%) just because it has not been in any previous batches. This is for an oncology drug in the clinic with a very good response rate. I could go on, but I just think we have reached a level of complexity that can not be sustained. Or maybe I have been around too long.

Permalink to Comment

20. Dave on July 8, 2008 12:21 AM writes...

When I was an undergrad, I detested business majors, because their classes were easier and they always got to be out having fun, when me and my engineering buddies were putting in 60 hrs/week working hard.

Now I just detest their sense of morality. I hope that guys hard drive crashes when he is in the middle of a big day trade.

Permalink to Comment

21. processhemist on July 8, 2008 1:35 AM writes...

@CMC

The role of process chemistry is (or was?) well known in Big Pharma... virtual companies or small biotechs (and also small old pharma companies) are often tempted by "low cost approaches" to phase I, and I mean no process development before the INDA , fast scale up of the medchem route. Few years ago I've been asked about the possible validation of a 20 l rotavap (for the isolation of the API, taken to dryiness!).

@Fat Old Man

About guidelines and guidelines implementation, I've seen the most divergent attitudes. My conclusion, over 10 years, is that all depends from the "feeling" between your reg dep and the controllers (EMEA or FDA): bad feeling, cGMP required early in the synthesis, every potential impurity declared etc; good feeling: the shortest DMFs you've ever seen.

Permalink to Comment

22. schinderhannes on July 8, 2008 3:27 AM writes...

@ 7. The Pharmacoepidemiologist:
What study and where, that sounds hypergolic!
I cannot find it in my clinical trials databases.
The only Pfizer publication today is an observational study showing that patients stay better on atorvastatin than simvastatin... (is that truly rocket sicence, coincidence or distraction?)
Thanx for any links...

Permalink to Comment

23. schinderhannes on July 8, 2008 4:43 AM writes...

found it at pharmalot...

http://www.pharmalot.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/cashmere-study.pdf

Permalink to Comment

24. Still Scared of Dinosaurs on July 8, 2008 5:25 AM writes...

>>What information do you get from Phase 2? I thought that Phase 2 gave you indication of efficacy. Does it give evidence of side effects or mechanism, or anything else that would be useful?

Most of my experience is with biologics where Phase 2 can raise significant mechanism issues - unfortunately. Well, it happened to me once - I have no idea how common it is - but it was huge when it happened. Huge in a bad way.

The difference between "indication of efficacy" and info about "side effects" is one of perspective. The former is mostly a group vs group assessment of how to deliver the drug to achieve different levels of effect in the group.
The latter is like a series of n-of-1 trials - every human exposure gives information about side effects. Well, kind of...the group differences still drive most of the discussion.

The trick in clinical development, especially coming out of Phase 2, is to determine the best combination(s) of dose, frequency, and length of exposure to optimize the benefit/risk in a population of patients without creating an unacceptable likelihood of catastrophic results in the least lucky members of that population.

Ideally you have it all worked out at the end of Phase 2, but then again, ideally people say "The Dictator's gone, let's all work together now."

Permalink to Comment

25. PharmaQ on July 8, 2008 7:39 AM writes...

Think of it this way - no R&D means no new drugs, no new drugs means less manufacturing, less sales force, etc. Eventually the company will collapse in on itself or be bought out by someone with management sense. We can only hope for that scenario!

Permalink to Comment

26. CMC guy on July 8, 2008 9:58 AM writes...

#21 processchemist: I think "was" is more common today from what I observe/hear as relates to those in charge being out of touch with R&D. You are correct about the delay factor to "save" costs but I have seen in operation at both big and small. This is even being pushed till later stages with "get by approach for Phase 1" then if project moves forward willing to invest more (to me this is False Economics as will ultimately pay more if wait). Although sometimes may have minimal improvement or alternate route studies in parallel during preclin and Phase 1 not going "all out" till late Phase 1 or Phase 2 really puts Process, Manufacturing and Reg behind the 8-ball to do work and introduce changes so can run proper Phase 3/Validations/Commercialization. Especially hard these days when Reg Agencies wanting more and more earlier.

I have seen Validation of 20L (& 50L?) Rot Vaps, for Highly Potent compounds no less.

Permalink to Comment

27. processchemist on July 8, 2008 10:25 AM writes...

@CMC

phase I with amorphous product: for injectables, maybe, and with all the papers dropping on right desk at EMEA. Currently for tox in dogs I'm asked about a definite polymorph of a product (yes, here there's also a bioavailability issue... I see that amorphous products for toxicologies are still quite common).
If process dev is losing value in Big Ones, process chemistry is doomed exactly like the other flavours of chemistry in the pharma environment and I'll see a growing number of project managers asking to "go in the man" with the most absurd syntheses.
Let's hope that is only the negative phase of a cyclic function.

Permalink to Comment

28. SRC on July 8, 2008 12:25 PM writes...

Dave, it gets worse. You'll end up working for those business majors, who will decide how many scientists and engineers they have to lay off to make their numbers.

Permalink to Comment

29. aa2 on July 8, 2008 2:07 PM writes...

The big problem in the pharma business isn't poor management or anything like that. It is the fact that the low hanging fruit has been picked for this current paradigm.

An analogy is the vaccine industry. Vaccines were the kings of the world medical industry when they were developed to go after the big viruses that afflicted mankind throughout time. Now I look at the newly developed vaccines and they are going after obscure viruses that while amazing for some people, aren't the smash hit blockbuster of something like the measles vaccine.

The future huge profits I believe are going to be in regenerative medicine and other new paradigms. Like maybe those nanoshells that might be able cook cancer cells. Think in regenerative medicine, the low hanging fruit in stem cells is still hanging there waiting. The 'ant-acid' of adult stem cells is sitting there.

Permalink to Comment

30. CMC guy on July 8, 2008 2:23 PM writes...

processchemist not sure is a cycle as although may be a bit of over generalization but except for Merck (up until a few years ago?) I don't feel most Big Pharma has appropriately valued process chemistry (plus other core CMC functions of formulations and analytical). Definitely at least not relative to Discovery Research (i.e. med chem) and other Development (Req, Clinical). (Small places/Biotech tend to be even more short sighted so worse). My experience is majority of initial Phase 1 materials (go in to man) I have seen/worked on are preps of patched up med-chem routes (absurd?). You only hope the project survives so can do some real effort. If you happen work in a place not like that than enjoy it because I do not think is typical.

I am not sure what the amphorous product statement refers to? Validation I mention was an injectable but was a Generic (i.e. commercial small volume). Otherwise indeed want need crystallize product ASAP into scale-up yet Polymorph issue can often be "ignored" (by some) until very late (Phase 3 when Validating). Unless of course it bites you in the arse (see Abbott HIV drug, which was post approval)

Permalink to Comment

31. CMC guy on July 8, 2008 2:25 PM writes...

#28 SRC you are right on target

Permalink to Comment

32. Lars on July 8, 2008 6:26 PM writes...

"The big problem in the pharma business isn't poor management or anything like that. It is the fact that the low hanging fruit has been picked for this current paradigm"

I don't buy it. So why are all theses pharma operations outsourcing to China? They also often cut staff, then hire back people at lower benefits. We're seeing the end of Pharma in THIS country. Pharma MBAs are lazy. They want obscene profits.

You need look no further than the sub-prime debacle and the plummeting US economy for proof. Lazy, shortsighted people who didnt want to create real businesses. They think a 120k salaray is a birthright after 2 years of school.

Permalink to Comment

33. processchemist on July 9, 2008 3:03 AM writes...

@CMC

For amorphous I mean a product taken to dryiness : usually you don't have crystals (also, I have a personal prejudice about scraping off the solid from the walls of a 10 or 20 l flask - it can happen, sure, but I'm not enthusiastic about it).
And for "absurd" I mean obscenely costly reagents, extremely toxic/dangerous chemicals and so on.

Permalink to Comment

34. aa2 on July 9, 2008 4:51 AM writes...

Hi Lars, I agree I hate shortsighted lazy management. I hate the whole MBA ideology, I think finance companies should be run by finance guys, pharma companies by chemists and biologists, engineering companies by engineers. But even in other nations where employees are treated differently like Japan, their pharma companies are still running into the same problems(albeit probably doing a little better).

The other thing is in days gone by I'm sure they had management problems too. But when you are making money hand over fist and the market keeps growing rapidly it is very easy to just sweep errors under the rug. Look at the oil companies right now, they have the same MBA's running them. But because the price and demand for oil is rising so fast, no one can see the problems.


I've seen in my life the current path the pharma companies are taking so many times. Well we aren't getting the results we want, so lets do the same thing as before just 'harder'. Eg.. squeezing the employees and cutting costs by things like outsourcing. Firing and incredibly experienced chemist in America, and hiring 2 inexperienced ones in a developing nation for less.

What I'd do is take half the research budget and say ok we are going to go after the most promising pharmacuetical areas.. take the other half and say we are going for all these new fields. Especially stem cells, but also gene engineering, devices like those nanoshells which by the way have far less regulatory pressures. And I'm sure there are many wild areas I don't even know of that have the potential to be blockbusters.

Permalink to Comment

35. CMC guy on July 9, 2008 10:07 AM writes...

processchemist agree not pleasant/advised ways to do things but does happen, particularly in rush to get early supplies. By your criteria I have done a number of absurd scale-up preps (although in general have been able to achieve rapid first line substitions of med chem routes to circumvent worst).

Your comment reminds me I have had to "dig out" a 50GAL reactor when crystallization "chunked". Talk about lack of enthusiam, particularly when having to write up Deviations and get QA to sign off. Keeps life interesting (in Chinese Proverb sense).

Validation mentioned was followed by a crystallization so indeed in end that product not amorphous.

Permalink to Comment

36. Frank on July 9, 2008 5:21 PM writes...

Business in Pharma is expanding! Jobs abound. Just not here!

Glaxo to double China staff!

http://www.biospace.com/news_story.aspx?NewsEntityId=102658

Permalink to Comment

37. George2 on July 11, 2008 8:12 PM writes...

'chemists to review inlicense products'

Crock of sh*t.

I'm working on two cmpds that have been purchased and favorably passed our 'due dilligence' process.

Both projects suck. We would never have gotten away with this kind of crap if it was internal project.

The in licence people buy the best drugs they can find (best looking girl in the bar) not a compound that is any better than we could have made ourselves.

They ignore the problems, ignore the gaps in understanding, and hype the potential -

hey, that sounds like marketing!!!

Permalink to Comment

38. joe on July 23, 2008 5:31 PM writes...

when pfizer lose patent on lipitor BILLIONS will be wiped off their net profit and the share price will crash fact pfizer have 7.6 billion shares outstanding at $1.28 dividend per share do the maths is the dividend safe?

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Scripps Update
What If Drug Patents Were Written Like Software Patents?
Stem Cells: The Center of "Right to Try"
Speaking of Polyphenols. . .
Dark Biology And Small Molecules
How Polyphenols Work, Perhaps?
More On Automated Medicinal Chemistry
Scripps Merging With USC?