Pharma tiene dos "Reyes de la jungla": Levinson (Genentech) y White (Abbott)

Un grupo de editores de Barron´s , después de conversar con inversores, analistas, ejecutivos y otros elaboró la lista de los 30 ejecutivos más destacados.

En ella aparecen dos de la industria farmacéutica:Art Levinson de Genetech y Miles White de Abbott.



Los dos han sido noticia en PHARMACOSERÍAS, Art Levinson por la "Historia interminable" de las negociaciones con Roche, Miles White por su "escandaloso" paquete salarial...en estos tiempos de "crisis".
Estos son los comentarios de la revista y los perfiles profesionales:

"The final list is made up of chief executive officers from around the world who are doing outstanding jobs of keeping their companies out of trouble and on course. That means conservative financial management, a strong focus on the customer and relentless innovation.

The roster includes no fewer than 12 new names. Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com, for instance, has transformed his company from an online bookseller to one of the world's top retailers, with a true hot product in its Kindle wireless e-book reader. Under Jim Skinner, McDonald's started growing again as the company capitalized on healthier foods like salads, while not ignoring its core customers who crave Big Macs. In financial services, few leaders stand taller than JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon, who has avoided major mishaps and become the go-to guy for regulators looking to unload crippled companies like Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual."

Art Levinson
Genentech, CEO since ’95
Why: Labs of lucre.
After 13 years as chief of the
biotechnology trailblazer,
Art Levinson extracted a multiple
of 25 times earnings from Roche
as the Swiss giant agreed this
month to pay $95 a share for the
44% of Genentech it doesn’t already
own.

That is double the biotech industry
multiple and a tribute to
the research productivity that
Levinson famously cultivated. Genentech
got more biotech treatments
approved than any rival
and has more than 100 clinical trials
under way. Profit has grown
at a 40% rate in the past five
years, on rising sales of cancer
treatments like Rituxan, Herceptin
and Avastin. Levinson’s company is one of the country’s biggest
sellers of cancer drugs, in part thanks to the high prices
it commands for its innovations.
Neither Roche nor Genentech has announced Levinson’s
role in Genentech after it becomes a wholly owned part of
Roche, but the Swiss company said it hoped to retain him
and other Genentech leaders. Roche will adopt the Genentech
name for all U.S. operations. —BillAlpert

Avastin Vs Lucentis : Dilema de ROCHE

Roche Holding AG’s Avastin was as effective as the company’s more costly Lucentis for treating the most common cause of blindness in the elderly, according to a study published in the NewEngland Journal of Medicine.

.../...

“The CATT results, together with the totality of global experience, support the use of either” Avastin or Lucentis for the treatment of macular degeneration, said Philip Rosenfeld, a professor of ophthalmology at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at the University of Miami. “Health-care providers and payers worldwide will now have to justify the cost of using ranibizumab,” or Lucentis, he wrote in an editorial.

Forty Times as Expensive

A single dose of Lucentis costs 40 times as much as a dose of Avastin, researchers led by Daniel Martin, chair of the Cleveland Clinic Cole Eye Institute, said in the study. Lucentis given every month cost $23,400, compared with $595 for Avastin, which is used in about 60 percent of the cases. A separate arm of the study suggested the drugs may be given less frequently without a significant reduction in benefit.

The cost difference has important economic implications when applied to the 250,000 Americans treated for macular degeneration annually, the researchers said. (Más)

Roche, The Professor And Washington Lobbying

By Ed Silverman // April 29th, 2011

Earlier this week, the long-awaited results of a head-to-head trial comparing two different drugs marketed by Roche’s Genentech unit were leaked. The upshot? The older Avastin cancer med is about as effective as Lucentis in treating a form of age-related macular degeneration. The significance? Avastin is not approved to treat the eye afflication, but is widely used off-label and costs up to $50 injection. Lucentis is approved to treat AMD, but costs an eye-popping $2,000 for an injection.

The results, which are now available in The New England Journal of Medicine (read the abstract), placed Roche in a tight spot. The drugmaker is in the unenviable position of having to justify the cost of one of its drug that generates a significant revenue, but is not proven to be any more effective than another of its own treatments, which is much cheaper and so many doctors are comfortable using despite a lack of FDA approval. The price disparity is a budget problem for Medicare and is what prompted the National Institutes of Health to run the trial (back story).

To crawl out of this dilemma, however, Roche engaged in some questionable conduct. For one, the drugmaker funded its own study (look here) that reviewed 78,000 Medicare recipients with AMD showing those given Avastin had an 11 percent higher risk of dying. As one loyal reader point out, however, the absolute risk of such an unpleasant outcome was not enunciated. But if Lucentis patients face a 1 percent chance of death, then Avastin patients face a 1.11 percent risk, a difference that does not seem quite as horrifying. And even though Avastin is approved to treat several cancers - which, of course, can be fatal - the emphasis placed on a higher risk of death raises the wisdom of playing up this angle. Maybe Avastin is not so safe?

Moreover, the Genentech unit took the results on a lobbying trip to Washington DC, according to The Wall Street Journal. And not only did Genentech execs meet with key Senate committee staffers Tuesday about the safety and efficacy of the two drugs, but the lead researcher - Emily Gower of Johns Hopkins University - was there, as well. And Gower also met with a Medicare official.

As the paper notes, it is not typical for researchers to discuss unpublished research. In fact, the paper writes that a spokeswoman for the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, where Gower is scheduled to present the results of her study next week, hasn’t allowed Gower to speak journalists before the presentation. Gower could not be reached for comment and Genentech tells the paper that the DC trip was all about “scientific conversations,” not lobbying. Really?

A Johns Hopkins spokesman, meanwhile, tells us this: “She was not lobbying. That would be a gross mischaracterization. She was asked to inform select people, staffers on the Hill, regarding her specific research issues. I think she naively overlooked the role of Genentech lobbying in this effort. She was certainly not there in the interest of the company. She was there in the interest of the science. It was an error of judgment on her part. She was naive in how this whole thing was handled, frankly. But she was not there as a lobbyist for Genentech or for Roche. I assure you that was not her intent.”

What, if anything, will Johns Hopkins do? “I don’t think we formulated a positon on that yet,” says spokesman Gary Stephenson, who adds Gower was not paid for her time. “We certainly are looking into it and I promise you that it will be the subject of a thorough review.”

Genentech is known for aggressive lobbying, and lobbying is, of course, a permissable activity. But the folks at the Roche biotech unit should have known better than to selectively tout results of a study before an agreed-upon disclosure. As for ARVO, a spokeswoman tells us she does not know whether the annual meeting program committee will review the breach. As an aside, when journalists violate an embargo, they are routinely banished from receiving material from the miffed publication or organization. As for Gower, Genentech may have taken advantage, but she also should have known better, given the reasons for the study and what is at stake.

What do you think?

Roche / Novartis: Peleas de "hermanos"...por Valcyte

Roche Holding AG’s Genentech unit sued Sandoz Inc. for planning to sell a generic version of Valcyte, which treats a virus that afflicts transplant patients and people with AIDS, before Genentech’s patent expires.

Sandoz, a unit of Basel, Switzerland-based Novartis AG, told Genentech on March 9 that it had applied for approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to make a generic of Valcyte, according to the complaint filed today in federal court in San Francisco.

Genentech, based in South San Francisco, California, said the plan to market the generic will cause “massive infringement” of its patent. Genentech seeks a court order declaring that the Sandoz generic is a patent-infringing drug, blocking the FDA from approving the drug until Genentech’s patent expires and barring Sandoz from engaging in commercial activity that would infringe the Genentech patent.

(Más)

Roche/Genentech: Avastin, el primero en la frente...?

Mas...

Hacerse con Avastin estaba entre uno de los principales objetivos en las largas negociaciones entre Roche y Genentech. Ahora, una vez materializada la fusión, las cosas parecen no salir como se deseaban.

Roche has announced that Avastin combined with chemotherapy to treat colon cancer has failed to reach its primary endpoint of lowering the risk of the cancer returning in a phase III trial.

The study, known as NSABP C-08, monitored the use of Avastin with chemotherapy for treatment of colon cancer after surgery compared with chemotherapy alone.

Dr Hal Barron, senior vice president, Development and chief medical officer of Genentech said: "While we are disappointed the C-08 study did not meet its primary endpoint, our initial review of the data leads us to continue to believe Avastin may be active in patients with early-stage colon cancer and look forward to NSABP's presentation at ASCO [American Society of Clinical Oncology]".

Mas...

Genentech gets the last laugh with Roche?

April 23, 2009

One of the pivotal negotiating points of the longstanding acquisition of Genentech by Roche was the forthcoming study of Avastin in colon cancer. The Avastin trial was widely reported as a key element to the negotiations. As Roche & Genentech openly debated a fair value for DNA shares, both sides played the PR game as the trials data was expected to be released this spring.

Genentech sigue de "nones" a ROCHE...

Una vez más Genentech hace esfuerzos para oponerse a los reiterados intentos de Roche...
El tiempo (y el dinero) dirá quien puede más.

NEW YORK - Genentech Inc. on Monday urged its shareholders to reject a hostile buyout bid from Swiss drugmaker Roche.

A Genentech committee said the offer is inadequate and not in the best interest of stockholders.

Roche owns 56 percent of Genentech and is looking to buy the rest of the company for $42 billion, or $86.50 per share. The deal would need support from a majority of the other shareholders.

Mas...

Roche - Genentech: Historia interminable o El fin del principio...

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- Genentech Inc. rose as much as 2.9 percent in New York trading after the Wall Street Journal reported on its Web site that the company is a near a deal to sell itself to Roche Holding AG for $46.7 billion, or $95 a share.

Roche, based in Basel, Switzerland, raised its bid for Genentech on March 6 to $93 a share from $86.50 a share, a 7.5 percent increase, saying it “wanted to get this deal done.” Genentech spokesman Geoffrey Teeter declined to comment on the report of the higher offer.

Mas...

Pharma execs popularity...

.

Sometimes adult life sends us through a disturbing time warp. It’s much too reminiscent of high school. The cool kids’ cafeteria table (or parking lot, where I grew up) becomes the cool grown-up party at J.P. Morgan, for instance. Step into biopharma Twitter, where the snark level sometimes hits Mean Girls levels. 

But today, it’s the “best all-around” votes senior year echoed in post-high school reality. Only instead of the most popular graduating senior, these votes chose the most congenial CEOs in biopharma. 

The business-information analysts over at Owler sifted through various data streams, including its own CEO rating tool (smile, frown or in-between) to come up with a ranking of the best-liked pharma leaders. The top 10 is mostly packed with Big Pharma’s top dogs, with a couple of surprises in the mix. 

Including No. 1, Sanjay Bhatia of Laborate Pharmaceuticals, a small, privately held drugmaker in Delhi, India. His approval rating with Owler’s tool? A stunning 99 out of 100. And it’s not because he has 100 employees who all voted with a smile. Laborate has an estimated 5,180 staffers and 1,980 followers on the Owler site. 

Roche and its Genentech unit swept second and third, with Roche’s Severin Schwan in second place with a 92.9 approval rating. 
Bill Anderson at Genentech clocked an 87.7.

Switzerland-based Roche bought the share of California-based Genentech it didn’t already own back in 2009, and the Genentech side of the business has delivered some of Roche’s biggest-selling drugs in the last few years. 

AbbVie’s Richard Gonzalez comes in fourth with an 83.8 approval rating—he’s been at the helm at that company since it was spun off by Abbott Laboratories in 2013. He’s consistently among the highest-paid CEOs in the industry, and while popularity among staff isn’t among his compensation metrics, driving “employee engagement” is. 

Rounding out the top five is Shire’s Flemming Ornskov, whose most recent claim to fame is the company’s buyout of Bioverativ, the hemophilia unit spun off by Baxter last year. 

 The rest of the top 10? 
Merck’s Ken Frazier; GlaxoSmithKline’s Emma Walmsley, who’s brand-new to the Glaxo CEO post; Johnson & Johnson’s Alex Gorsky; and Bayer’s relatively new chief, Werner Baumann. Steven H. Collis, CEO of the drug distributor AmerisourceBergen, came in seventh. All of their ratings fell in the 70s. (Más)

BIg PHARMA: Grandes alianzas 2009

1 of 10

Pfizer/Wyeth

What: Acquisition

When: January 2009

Worth: $68 billion

The cash-stock transaction that valued each of Wyeth’s shares at $50.19 was the beginning of some major consolidation for the industry. The acquisition gave Pfizer, the world’s largest drug company by sales, a much larger presence in areas where it was notably weak: vaccines and biotech drugs. Pfizer was expected to lose about half of its revenue stream by 2015 when it loses patent protection for its cholesterol blockbuster Lipitor, its erectile-dysfunction drug Viagra, as well as several others. At the time of the acquisition, Pfizer said it would save $4 billion from the takeover and would cut approximately 19,000 employees, or 15% of its combined workforce.

2 of 10

Roche/Genentech

What: Acquisition

When: March 2009

Worth: $48 billion

After a long series of negotiations, Roche finally got its hands on the remaining 44% stake of the biotech that it hadn’t already owned with a deal that gave Genentech shareholders $95 per share. Unlike some of the other major mergers of the year, Genentech drugs had already accounted for 66% of Roche’s top-selling drugs in 2008. The companies have had a relationship since 1990 and the acquisition enabled the Swiss-based company to better integrate Genentech scientists into its infrastructure. Roche also got further access to the biotech’s cancer drugs: Avastin and Herceptin.

3 of 10

Merck/Schering-Plough

What: Merger

When: March 2009

Worth: $41 billion

This wasn’t the first go-around for these two Big Pharmas; the companies jointly market the blockbuster cholesterol drugs Zetia and Vytorin (bringing in $4 billion in annual sales). The cash-stock transaction gave Schering investors 0.5767 Merck shares and $10.50 in cash per share. Merck said it would have savings of $3.5 billion annually after 2011 due to the takeover. The deal was structured as a reverse merger where Schering would absorb Merck, but retain its name, in an effort to hold onto the rights of the rheumatoid arthritis drug Remicade, which was co-marketed with Johnson & Johnson.

4 of 10

Abbott Laboratories/Solvay

What: Asset Sale

When: September 2009

Worth: $6.6 billion

Prior to the agreement, Abbott Laboratories had the US marketing rights to the TriCor cholesterol franchise. In the deal, Abbott bought the Belgian company’s pharmaceutical portfolio as well as the worldwide rights to TriCor, adding a total of $3 billion in sales to Abbott’s top line. By buying the European chemical company’s pharmaceutical unit, Abbott was able to rid itself of some pesky royalty payments, as well as gain a more substantial presence in the cardiovascular and vaccine arenas. This deal also reduced the company’s dependence on the arthritis drug Humira, which brought in sales of $4.5 billion in 2008.

5 of 10

Sanofi-Aventis/Merck

What: Asset Sale

When: July 2009

Worth: $4 billion

The French company acquired the other half of its animal-health joint venture with Merck, Merial Limited, for $4 billion in cash. Merial was started by the two companies in 1997. Merck decided to divest its stake in Merial to avoid any regulatory problems due to overlap it had with Schering-Plough’s animal-health unit. The deal also allowed for m to exercise the option to create another joint venture with Merck through the combination of Merial with the Schering-Plough animal-health branch. Merial had sales of $2.6 billion in 2008.

6 of 10

GlaxoSmithKline/
Stiefel Laboratories

What: Acquisition

When: April 2009

Worth: $3.6 billion

GlaxoSmithKline is dealing with its eventual patent cliff through diversification and development in emerging markets, opting for smaller deals in specialty markets instead of a mega-merger like some of its competitors. The British drugmaker purchased the Stiefel dermatology business, which commanded 8% of the dermatology prescription-treatment market at the time, for $2.9 billion as well as assuming $400 million in debt. The deal included a $300 million potential payment contingent upon performance. The transaction added to Glaxo’s skincare business, which had sales of $550 million in 2008.

7 of 10

Warner Chilcott/P&G

What: Asset Sale

When: August 2009

Worth: $3.1 billion

The Northern Ireland-based pharmaceutical company Warner Chilcott acquired the consumer-products giant’s drug arm several months after P&G put the branch, which had $2.3 billion in revenues for the year ended June 30, on the block. Warner Chilcott expanded its women's health care, urology, and gastroenterology businesses through the transaction, and it doubled its market cap to $7 billion. In the agreement, Warner Chilcott got the rights to Asacol Delayed-Release Tablets for ulcerative colitis, Actonel for osteoporosis, and the co-promotion rights to Enablex for the treatment of overactive bladder.

8 of 10

Genzyme/Bayer Healthcare

What: Partnership

When: March 2009

Worth: $2.9 billion

Genzyme stepped up its presence in the increasingly hot oncology world by striking a licensing deal with Bayer for Campath, Flurdara, and Leukine. Genzyme assumes all responsibility for development and marketing. The biotech will pay Bayer royalties based on revenues earned. The companies agreed to co-promote Campath as a multiple sclerosis treatment with Bayer receiving royalties up to $1.25 billion, while Genzyme will be the sole marketer of the drug for the treatment of B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The drugs contribute to Genzyme’s hematologic oncology revenues; the segment pulled in $176 million in the first nine months of 2009.

9 of 10

Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma/Sepracor

What: Acquisition

When: September 2009

Worth: $2.6 billion

The recession may have been pretty terrible for most US companies, but it allowed many foreign drug makers to enter the US pharmaceutical market on the cheap. Japan’s Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma was no different. The Japanese company managed to gain a US presence, infrastructure, and sales force (all things it was lacking) through Sepracor, which primarily developed treatments for the central nervous system and respiratory conditions. The company plans to seek regulatory approval for its schizophrenia treatment from the FDA in 2010.

10 of 10

Bristol-Myers Squibb/Medarex

What: Acquisition

When: July 2009

Worth: $2.4 billion

Bristol-Myers Squibb Chief Executive James Cornelius has spoken about a “string of pearls” process for acquiring and strengthening the company’s product offerings, as the company looks for ways to broaden its pipeline as the Plavix patent expiration approaches. The pharma giant paid $16 per share in cash for Medarex as part of a diversification strategy. Through the acquisition, Bristol-Myers Squibb gained $300 million in cash and securities, a late-stage skin-cancer drug, and Medarex technology that finds new ways to treat cancer and immunological disorders.

Roche/Genentech: THE END

Drugs company Roche has agreed to merge with Genentech, and is to buy the remaining shares of the US firm for $46.8bn (£33.7bn).

Page last updated at 10:11 GMT, Thursday, 12 March 2009

Roche already owned 55% of Genentech. The deal ends a long struggle between the two companies and is the latest merger in the pharmaceutical sector.

The combined group will generate about $17bn in annual revenues and be the seventh-largest US drugs company.

Much of Genentech's revenue comes from cancer-related drugs.

Roche expects the merger to generate annual pre-tax cost savings of about $750m to $850m.

ROCHE a GENETECH: Y si te ofrezco mas...?

Le hizo antes una propuesta que no aceptó. Ahora parece insistir ofreciendo más...

Mas...

La oferta de Roche podría ser de $95 USD por acción, para un total de $44,000 M USD. Las acciones de Genentech se llegaron a cotizar en casi $100 USD entre agosto y septiembre del año pasado y a decir de Bloomberg, es el precio en el que seguramente se cerraría la operación.

Una vez más, nos encontramos con la apuesta que hace una importante empresa de salud hacia el sector biotecnológico. Roche, una potencia en oncología, ya había adquirido en enero de 2008 Ventana Medical por $3,400 M de USD, tal y como lo mencionamos AQUÍ.

El potencial de Genentech es sin duda tan grande como su valor de capitalización. Con un portafolios de más de 100 proyectos, la empresa biotecnológica Estadounidense se enfoca en 5 áreas:

• Oncología
• Inmunología
• Daño tisular y su reparación
• Neurociencias
• Infectología

Pionera en la investigación de anticuerpos monoclonales, Genentech enriquecerá sin duda el portafolios de Roche, quien es seguramente la farmacéutica global con la más agresiva visión en su paso a la siguiente generación de terapias.

Tomé prestado a Strategic Consulting Blog

Reputation Institute’s 2018 US Pharma RepTrak

+

The Largest Study on Reputation of Pharmaceutical Brands in the US

BOSTON — June 14, 2018 — Reputation Institute (RI), the world’s leading provider of reputation measurement, monitoring and management services, today announced the company’s annual US Pharma RepTrak® rankings. Based on more than 2,608 individual ratings of pharmaceutical companies during the first quarter of 2018, the survey quantifies the emotional bond stakeholders have with pharma companies in the US, and how these connections drive supportive behavior such as the willingness to purchase a company’s products, recommend the brand, invest in or work for a company.(Más)

1. Sanofi. RepTrak Points: 74.6 
Sanofi's winning characteristics lies in its promotion of ethics and transparency, according to Reputation Institute. Sanofi has in the past year promised tolimit price increases and disclose "transparency reports" behind overall costs of its drugs. 

2. Genentech. RepTrak Points: 74.0 
A subsidary of Roche, Genentech is investing in a new way to treat Alzheimer's. It also recently made a $534 million deal with Microbiotica to research gut bacteria in hopes of developing new treatments for inflammatory bowel disease. 

3. Celgene. RepTrak Points: 72.5 
Celgene specializes in drugs for cancer and inflammatory diseases, known for its treatment of multiple myeloma. However, in February, the company hit a major setbackwith its multiple sclerosis drug. 

4. AbbVie. RepTrak Points: 72.3 
 The Humira-maker spun out of of Abbott Laboratories back in 2013. Recently, its rheumatoid arthritis drug successfully completed a late-stage trial.  
AbbVie was ranked first in last year's list, but has fallen back a few spots this year.

Ver:

Pharma RepTrak 2017: Pharma Reputation 2014-2017 (cont.) Top companies

5. Biogen. RepTrak Points: 72.0 
The company specializes in treatments for neurodegenerative, blood-based, and autoimmune diseases. Althought it hasn't made many major moves this past year, it's still a major playerwhen it comes to its neuroscience pipeline. Early this year, it sold its hemophilia drug maker company, Bioverativ, to Sanofi for $11.6 billion. 

6. Bayer. RepTrak Points: 70.7 
Best known for making aspirin, the German company is also throwing its hat in the ring to bet on gene therapies. In June, Bayer finalized its $66 billion merger with agriculture giant Monsanto, which has farmers worried. 

7. Gilead. RepTrak Points: 70.1 
Gilead has historically been focused on antiviral drugs to treat diseases like HIV and hepatitis C. But earlier this year, it just made a huge bet on an experimental gene-editing technology for cancer treatments.

8. Allergan. RepTrak Points: 69.8 
The Botox-maker has had a rocky relationship with its investors this year. It's been actively refreshing its board, and just last month, it announced its plan to sell offtwo of its non-core businesses to appease investors. In June, the company presented positive data in a glaucoma candidate and meet goals with its oral migraine drug. 

9. Novo Nordisk. RepTrak Points: 68.8 
The Danish company is known as a diabetes drug giant. 
The turbulent US market forced it tolay off 3,000 people and axe its long term growth plan. 

10. McKesson. RepTrak Points: 68.7 
McKesson distributes not only drugs, but also health IT, medical supplies and care management tools. In June, the company reduced the CEO's pay by 10% after investors revolted. 

Más