Astellas Scientist Shows How to Light Ice on Fire!

This is Robert Kernstock, Principal Scientist at Astellas Pharma US. I was alerted to meet Robert and "learn why he LOVES science & who inspired him" by @AstellasUS, the company's Twitter account.

I immediately recognized Robert from a video he made that teaches kids how to light ice on fire. That video was the highlight of a conference I attended last year. That's Robert and his fiery ice on the left. I embedded the video below.

The Astellas YouTube channel (here) showcases several of its scientists as part of the company's Science WoRx (get it? ie, "Rx" for prescription) project, which is a local mentoring program and online resource network for science teachers.

I think this is an interesting program because it shows us some of the real people who work in the pharmaceutical industry and how they got there. Robert became interested in chemistry because his father was a chemist and worked for Dow Chemical and he admired his chemistry teacher in school.

[Personal aside: I recall that Dow Chemical produced deadly napalm and agent orange during the Vietnam War in the 60s and was responsible for the 1984 Bhopal (India) disaster, one of the world's worst industrial catastrophe due to a leak of methyl isocyanate. Obviously Dow Chemical also produces some great products that make life easier. In the balance of things, however, I'd much rather be like Robert and work for Astellas than like his father who worked at Dow. Robert says he had a "particular passion" which is "to help people. I wanted to cure diseases," said Robert (see his interview here).]

Astellas says "We encourage you to leave comments here. However, we will review all comments and will remove any that are inappropriate or offensive. Please understand that comments posted to this channel do not necessarily represent the opinions of Astellas Pharma US, Inc."

I guess Astellas has not received any comments or it finds all comments that were submitted -- I think I submitted one a while back -- inappropriate or offensive because I can't find any comments at all. That's a shame because it would be neat to have some kind of conversation with scientists like Robert or at least send them comments to say how much we enjoyed seeing ice on fire!

P.S. Astellas says "We understand that the future of innovation lies in our children and that a child’s interest in science is sparked in the classroom," says Astellas. "We also recognize that America’s science teachers are key in igniting this spark and that it’s their commitment that compels a child’s desire to pursue their interest further. In fact, many of our own employees attribute their passion for science to dedicated science educators like you."

It's too bad that state governments currently under Republican rule like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are drastically cutting funds to education and undermining the teachers that Astellas and other pharmaceutical companies depend upon to get future scientists on their payrolls. I think the drug industry needs to step forward FINANCIALLY to fill some of the void being created by draconian budget cuts. That's my opinion at least.



Whoah -- this ice is on fire! Learn how this "cool" reaction works with Science Pro Robert. Kids of all ages will get a kick out of this, but adult supervision is definitely required in this experiment! Please remember to wear all Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Incorporate this flashy experiment into your next class by requesting a companion lesson plan from science.worx@us.astellas.com!

Utilization of Social Media - How Far Is Too Far?

You probably have gone too far with social media if your campaign has been lambasted here on Pharma Marketing Blog as in this case.

Maybe you've gone too far if you received a letter from the FDA as in this case.

Or maybe you haven't gone anywhere at all with social media!

But seriously, how far can pharma marketers go with social media?

That's a question I will ask panel members and the audience at next Monday morning's iPharmaConnect conference in Philadelphia (see agenda). Other questions/topics to be addressed include:

• Can pharma marketers effectively use social media without crossing regulatory lines that have yet to be drawn in the sand?
• What are regulatory affairs and legal people within pharma companies concerned about when their marketing people seek to do branded marketing via social media?
• How can pharma marketers more effectively leverage digital tools to improve the connection with their audience?

Glenn Byrd, Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs at MedImmune, will be a member of that panel. Unfortunately, Cynthia North, Customer Marketing Director at Bayer Healthcare, also was scheduled to be on the panel, but she won't be able to make it due to a business conflict.

I agreed to help the conference organizers look for a replacement -- preferably someone working inside a pharmaceutical company on the commercial (ie, marketing) side. If you are interested, contact Dan Elliman, Program Manager, The Center for Business Intelligence, 339-298-2153, Or contact me.

Disclosure: My newsletter -- Pharma Marketing News -- is a Media Partner for this conference. I am not getting paid to moderate this panel, although I will stick around for the free lunch!

PhRMA Slaps Sleazy, Self-Serving Spin on GAO Drug Price Analysis

"We are pleased the GAO appropriately took into account the facts about how the biopharmaceutical marketplace works in its analysis of prescription medicine pricing trends," said PhRMA CEO John J. Castellani in his organization's Statement Regarding GAO Report. "The [GAO] report's key finding shows prices have been increasing at a rate of 2.6% [my emphasis] annually, which is lower than overall medical inflation," said Castellani.

Castellani focused exclusively on the GAO analysis of one "basket" (basket #4) of drugs that was "based on the active ingredient rather than drug name...in order to account for the growing national shift in consumer utilization from brand-name to generic versions of drugs." In other words, the basket included generic and brand name drugs. For example, “Zocor/10mg/oral/tablet” and “simvastatin/10mg/oral/tablet” would be considered the same drug for purposes of this fourth basket because they are the brand-name and generic versions of drugs with the same active ingredient, even though they have different names.

Of course, PhRMA does not represent the generic drug industry, so you can forgive Castellani for not mentioning the REAL "key findings" of the GAO report; ie, between Q12009 and Q12010, brand name drugs increased in price by 7.1% whereas generic drug prices decreased by 1.5% (see chart below, which also includes data from Barclays Capital):

Meanwhile, a Los Angeles Times story proclaims "U.S. drug prices outstrip other medical costs: GAO" and a Wall Street Journal's story is titled "Drug Prices Rise Despite Calls for Cuts" (find that story, which highlights the Barclays Capital analysis, along with the GAO report here).

One other problem with PhRMA's statement is this: The 2.6% price increase cited by Castellani is the AVERAGE increase in price between 2006 and 2010. That, indeed, is LESS than the 3.8 percent average annual increase in the consumer price index (CPI) for all medical goods and services -- which INCLUDES drugs -- during the same period. Looking only at 2009-2010 GAO data, however, the price increase was 4.3%. In comparison, the CPI for "Medical care services," which EXCLUDES drugs, rose 3.0% for the 12 months ending January, 2011, according to this Bureau of Labor Statistics press release.

Whether or not drug price increases are greater or lesser than general medical costs is a moot point. Why doesn't the industry share some of the pain many people are feeling during this harsh economy and DECREASE the price of its products as did the generic drug industry? Yeah, like that would happen!

IMHO, One Major Pharma Company Should NOT Be On NAFE's List of 50 Top Companies for Women Executives

NAFE -- the National Association for Female Executives -- released it list of the top 50 for-profit companies that that are "paving the way in women's advancement." Women in these companies hold 23 percent of board seats (versus 16 percent at the Fortune 500) and represent 14 percent of CEOs (versus 2 percent).

Pharma companies in the list (find it here) include:

• Abbott
• AstraZeneca
• Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceutical USA
• Bristol-Myers Squibb
• Eli Lilly and Company
• Johnson & Johnson
• Merck
• Pfizer Inc

NOT included in the list are several of the other Top 20 pharma companies in terms of sales:

• Novartis
• Sanofi-Aventis
• GlaxoSmithKline
• Roche
• Bayer
• Novo Nordisk

Here's NAFE's methodology for choosing companies to be on the list:

In addition to assessing corporate programs and policies dedicated to advancing women, NAFE measured results, examining the number of women in each company overall, in senior management, and on its board of directors. They drew particular attention to the number of women with profit-and-loss responsibility. To be named to the NAFE Top Companies for Executive Women, companies with a minimum of two women on the board completed a comprehensive application that focused on the number of women in senior ranks (compared to men and to the company population), including questions about the programs and policies which support women's advancement.

It seems to be a numbers game for the most part. Not taken into account is whether or not women executives were made scape goats by their male superiors. If that had been part of NAFE's methodology, perhaps Johnson and Johnson would not have made the list this year.

Recall that Johnson and Johnson's male CEO forced a female executive to face a Congressional Committee rather than do it himself (see "J&J's Goggins Takes Bullet for CEO Weldon").

FDA Promises Still More Guidance! This Time It's Mobile. Janssen's Psoriasis iPhone App May Need It.

"The Food & Drug Administration is planning to release guidance for mobile medical applications in 2011, according to Center for Devices and Radiological Health director Dr. Jeffrey Shuren." That was reported in this story relaying comments made at a "town hall meeting" held March 10 in Irving, Texas.

I don't know nearly as much about Dr. Jeffrey Shuren as I do about Tom Abrams, his counterpart in FDA's DDMAC. But if he's making more promises that the FDA hasn't the ability to keep, then I urge that he resign along with Tom Abrams (see "Is It Time for Abrams to Leave?").

As you probably know, DDMAC first "promised" that it would issue social media guidance for pharmaceutical promotion by the end of 2010. When they missed that date, Abrams "promised" it would be done by the end of Q1 20011, which leaves only about 2 weeks for the FDA to fulfill that "promise."

Most observers, however, believe FDA will not deliver social media guidance before April Fool's Day 2011. Considering the looming budget cuts suggested by some anti-government bloat lawmakers, it could be a cold day in hell before FDA can spare the resources to get the job done as "promised."

Regarding mobile devices FDA has a much, much greater challenge in issuing guidance. The issue has to do with agency approval of Mobile medical applications as medical devices. So far, FDA has approved two mobile applications:

1. MobiUS, a smartphone-based ultrasound imaging application for use in obstetric, gastrointestinal, cardiac andother clinical applications.
2. Mobile MIM, a mobile diagnostic radiology application that facilitates viewing of medical images for diagnostic purposes via Apple’s iPhone and iPad devices.

FDA approval of these devices/applications hinged on image quality (see FDA Press Release). Of much greater concern, however, are applications that involve more complicated software. Whether or not the FDA would regulate mobile software has been an issue for nearly two years.

Is the FDA technologically competent enough to evaluate mobile App software? It's a valid question considering that many people have doubted that FDA was competent enough to understand social media and issue guidance in that realm. Software, which operates behind the scenes, is even more of a challenge.

Faulty software can make medical devices dangerous. Think of "HAL" in charge of millions of pacemakers. That sort of thing.

There is a relation between mobile medical Apps and pharmaceutical marketing. Many pharmaceutical marketers are developing mobile Apps. The latest one I've come across is Janssen's "Psoriasis" app for the iPhone and iPad (see it here on iTunes).

The physician version -- which any non-physician can easily access -- includes a "PASI calculator." PASI stands for "Psoriasis Area and Severity Index," which is a tool for the measurement of severity of psoriasis. According to the wikipedia entry, the following formula is used to calculate PASI:

I won't get into the details here, but I wonder if this is the equation used in the software that calculates PASI in Janssen's Psoriasis App? Does the software implement the equation correctly? Has it been tested and certified as correct? By whom?

Jannsen does include this statement in its disclaimer: "The information provided on this App is not a substitute for professional medical care." This is par for the course when dealing with consumers who may be using the PASI calculator without medical supervision.

But I can't find any information about the clinical validity of the PASI calculator, which is an issue I've often blogged about (see, for example, "Pharma Symptom Quiz Goes to the Dogs!" and links therein).

This is just a simple example of a medical App that depends on the accuracy of its software to function properly. If marketers design the Apps and hire outside tech agencies to develop the Apps, then there is the possibility that the software can be "gamed" to provide desired results (eg, higher PASI score) much like the software of Vegas slot machines are "gamed" to favor the house.

Is the Janssen Psoriasis App a medical device that needs to be approved by the FDA? I think that's a valid question to ask since the App encourages physicians to use it: "This interactive PASI calculator enables you to generate a PASI score for your patients."

P.S. Janssen says that the Psoriasis iPhone App is "Intended for a European audience." But it -- like ALL iPhone Apps -- is available on iTunes, which is a US retail Web site. Does that trump "intention" and does intention matter as far as the FDA is concerned?

P.S. See "Checking Under the Hood of Pharma Mobile Apps" for an update.

Astrazeneca's Twitter Survey: Will They Share Some Results?

@astrazeneca is currently asking its Twitter followers (of which it has over 5,000) to fill out an online survey hosted on SurveyMonkey. AZ tweeted this a few minutes ago: "Last chance 2 complete our Twitter survey, closing fri...we’d like your ideas: http://ow.ly/4bzf0" In case the survey is closed by the time you read this, you can find a PDF version I created for archival purposes here: http://bit.ly/AZTsurvey

I also use SurveyMonkey to survey my Twitter followers and have received over 1,600 responses to date. You can take my survey (here) and/or see the de-identified results (here).

What is AZ interested in learning from its followers? There's the standard demographic-type questions, including "How would you best describe yourself?" The choices listed tell us something about who AZ expects should or could be following them:

• Media/journalist
• Academic/researcher
• Pharmaceutical employee
• AZ employee
• Healthcare provider
• Government agency/regulator
• Communications specialist/agency
• NGO/civil society employee
• AZ business partner
• Patient/patient advocate
• Service provider/consultant
• AZ shareholder

It's interesting that AZ allows respondents to check off all that apply. Obviously, practically everyone should click "Patient/patient advocate" -- we are all patients at one time or another. AZ should have clarified that and put "Patient advocate" as a separate category considering how interested this group of people are in forging relationships with the pharmaceutical industry (see "Social Media's OK Corral: Docs vs. Patients" and "Some Social Media Patient Opinion Leaders Want to be Paid Pharma Professionals" and "PHARMA Co Patient Opinion Leader Programs").

AZ wants to know if @astrazenca (ie, its Twitter account) is the "main source of information about AZ." I'd like to know the answer to THAT question! (I hope AZ shares some results of the survey; I DM'd AZ this inquiry: "I responded to your Twitter Follower survey. Will you share some of the results?").

AZ asks followers what they want to see more/less of from @astrazenca, including (my responses are in parentheses):

• News from AZ (RIGHT AMOUNT)
• Views/opinion from AZ leaders (MORE)
• Coverage of AZ in the media (LESS)
• Retweets of things we find interesting (MORE)
• Financial information from AZ (LESS)
• Twitter events such as interviews and debates (MORE)

The last question in the survey asks "How could we make better use of social media to meet your needs?" to which I responded: "More Twitter chats! Invite guest moderators such as key opinion leaders, patient advocates, etc."

I haven't yet heard back from AZ whether or not they will reveal some results of their survey. If and when I do, I will let you know what they say (SEE BELOW).

P.S. Note to Astrazeneca. I love the simplicity of your online survey; single white page, small unassuming logo at the top, etc. For future reference: When users finish taking the survey, you should direct them to perhaps the AZ corporate website. Right now, they are brought to the SurveyMonkey sign-up page. Why give SurveyMonkey free promotion? I assume you are paying SurveyMonkey a few hundred dollars per year to use their surveying software, in which case they allow you to redirect to whatever URL you wish. Just a thought.

P.P.S. Just got this from @astrazeneca: "thanks for the feedback - yes we'll share some of the survey results via this feed"

"On Course with Phil" Lacks Social Media Pizzazz!

This is NOT an attack on Phil Mickelson! I've already done that, been there (see Phil Mickelson "Opens Up" to Arthritis Today Magazine and Is Phil Mickelson Shilling for Enbrel?). So, relax and proceed to the back nine! This is about the "non-branded" disease awareness campaign just announced by Pfizer & Amgen, the companies that bring you ENBREL.

The centerpiece of the campaign is the "On Course with Phil" website, which is pretty lame by today's social media standards. Before I get to that, let me show you the homepage screen that I just captured:

In case you missed it, I circled the "money shot," which is not Phil hitting the ball in the hole, but the prominent link to a "treatment option." The link, of course, leads directly to the branded ENBREL website. Surely, this biologic compound that has a LONG list of things you need to tell your doctor about before taking (eg, "if you live or have lived in ...the Southwest") is NOT the first treatment option one should consider!

Amgen and Pfizer have teamed up (ie, given money to) the Arthritis Foundation and the National Psoriasis Foundation -- patient groups -- to form the "Joint Smart Coalition," which is responsible for the "On Course with Phil" campaign.

On the "On Course with Phil" website, Phil says that he first experienced pain right after the 2010 U.S. Open, which was held in Pebble Beach, California -- the same "Southwest" that the ENBREL package insert says you should tell your doctor about if you ever lived there.

Anyhoo, the website is pretty primitive. I was hoping to see at least a video clip of Phil shooting some balls or maybe even telling us personally about his experience. Instead, you have to click "1", "2", etc. to read what he has to say. Very BORING!

And that "SHARE" button in the upper right corner -- it's not what you think. All it is is a form whereby you can send an email to one other person. Where's the social media share button that allows you to share this site on Twitter, Facebook, etc? I can get code for that and not even pay a dime for it! Like this one:

Share |

Pfizer is often touted to be a leader in social media. But if Pfizer built this site, then it's not worthy of wearing that mantle. I think, however, the real reason this site is basic Web 1.0 is that AMGEN and PFIZER spent all their money on signing up Mickelson and they have none left over to do anything fancy like video or social media integration (see Amgen Blows Its Marketing Budget on Phil Mickelson Campaign).

I've often said that celebrities and social media is a "match made in heaven" for product promotion and that the drug industry is likely to use this combination more often (see "Use of Celebrities for PR and DTC Advertising"; use discount code: 71-01PMYFREE). So, it's a surprise to me that Pfizer and Amgen have not (yet) taken advantage of the synergies between celebrities and social media as other drug companies have done (see, for example, Danica Patrick: NASCAR Driver, Super Model, Superbowl Lingerie Ad Model, & COPD Spokesperson All Rolled Into one!). But, hey, it could still happen!