Pharma Exec says DTC Ads a "Big Mistake" | Arthritis Information

Direct from the horses mouth:

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINL247649320081202?rpc=44

U.S.-style TV drug ads a big mistake -Roche exec
Tue Dec 2, 2008 8:28am EST By Ben Hirschler

LONDON, Dec 2 (Reuters) - U.S.-style direct advertising to consumers has been a big mistake for the global drug industry, undermining the reputation of the sector in the eyes of patients, according to a top executive at Roche.

"Direct-to-consumer promotion was the single worst decision for the industry," William Burns, the Swiss group's head of pharmaceuticals, told an FT conference in London on Tuesday.

"When industry says we're spending all the money on R&D but actually it's spending it on TV advertising to preserve margins, it doesn't get much credibility," he added.Gimpy-a-gogo2008-12-08 12:57:45.I can't stand those commercials on tv for Enbrel, Humira, Orencia, etc. They seem to me like they make some pretty lofty promises that, in my experience, they can't come close to delivering on. I don't think these drugs are the miracle cure. But I do believe that for the cost of them, they should deliver a bit better results in RA patients.bob, that's kind of the point. The money you pay is mostly being spent on commercials, not research and development.Gimpy, do you get the advertising in Canada. The article states this only goes on in US and New Zealand? I would like to see less of it. Well, Lorster, I'm not sure, because I never watch TV. I think we might get them on sattelite TV but not cable? For sure not cable, because it's not allowed. And no ads in magazines, unless they are medical trade journals. It's less, anyway.

True. Are there any other drugs that are being developed for the current market other than Actemra? I'm not aware of any but I haven't searched in a while. They also seem to spend a ton of money on developing new, more expensinve ways to deliver the treatments. I have no idea how true this is but I was told once that is one of the ways that drug companies keep anyone from making a generic of the biologics. Every so many years, when the patent for an injection method/device runs out they develop a new way to do it so they can renew keeping generics off the market.

I thought this sounded pretty far fetched. I thought that the reason biologics had no generics is because it was so expensive to make them in the first place that no other drug manufacturers could do it cheaper. I don't know, I'm not a chemist. I do know they are slightly overpriced but if they worked just a little better might be worth it.

Cimzia, already approved for Crohn's disease, is in clinical trials for RA. I think other things may be in the works, but at a very early stage (ie before there's even a drug name).[QUOTE=bob_h76]

[/QUOTE]

Here is one of the reasons there are not generic biologics....

Will Biological Drugs Go Generic?

A bill in Congress could let generic drugmakers manufacture these pricey meds. But biotechs like Amgen claim they're too complex for others to make safely

WASHINGTON (By John Carey, BusinessWeek) March 15, 2007 — In the fight to tame health-care costs, generic drugs provide a rare success story. These copies of brand-name medicines now account for 60% of all U.S. prescriptions. They shaved tens of billions of dollars off the nation's 3 billion drug bill in 2006.

But this remedy has a serious limitation: Generics are allowed only for traditional, chemical compounds whose patents have expired. You can't get them for complex biological drugs such as hormones or antibodies used in cancer treatments. Some of the world's most potent and popular medicines fall into this biotech basket, and existing federal laws prevent them from going generic.

While that's good news for biotech companies, whose drugs enjoy staggering monopoly prices, it's agony for patients and their insurers. A year's worth of Genzyme's Cerezyme, for a rare ailment called Gaucher's disease, can top 0,000. Genentech's cancer drug Avastin costs as much as 0,000 per year. That places a huge burden on companies who cover the treatments in their health plans, and on consumers with high co-pays. "It's our single fastest-growing category of health costs," observes Sidney Banwart, human-services vice-president at equipment maker Caterpillar. "The trend is simply not sustainable."

http://www.ustimes.us/will_biological_drugs_go_generic.htm

at this point there are no generics for the biologics because they are still under patent protection. I like the commecials. They actually show what happens or can happen to those of us with rheumatoid arthritis. I think that they have been a big help in learning my friends and relatives.

Bob, they aren't miracle cures, but certainly miracle drugs. Prior to the biologics most ra sufferers wound up with twisted and deformed joints. The biologics certainly are cutting into the makers of the joint replacements profits. And yes, there are many therapies in the works including a vacine.

LEV

I wish they would work on a cure for RA instead of putting so much money into slowing the progression of RA.

Even though it is too late to save my major joints, I'd love to be free of the fatigue, and all the expensive drugs.