Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc fka ARIA

[o]

Exchanges from the cafepharma Novartis board "Oncology, CML brand team" (from January 17th onwards)

http://www.cafepharma.com/boards/showthread.php?t=520516

-->
Hey Ariad here-

Can't wait to eat your lunch Novartis!

-->
Well we spent a crap load of time examining and tearing apart your drug. I guess we are ready to battle you for the 1% of the population with the T315I mutation. awesome
-->
Good luck. If you guys got Tasigna off the ground with BID dosing, food and dosing restrictions, and QT issues, Ariad shouldn't have much trouble getting a drug with superior efficacy in position to capture most of 2nd line.

Best focus on getting those newly diagnosed patients now. Spin, smoke and mirrors won't work long and will cost you credibility in the long run (assuming Novartis has any left after spending the last four years trying to convince docs they need to switch all their Gleevec patients to Tasigna before the patent expires).
-->
so, so true.
-->
NVS in the eyes of my Thought Leaders (1 National) lost credibility dropping GLV for CML or painting it as a poor choice. Too many people are doing extremely well on it to stop talking about it. Anything that is easier to use for the patient, has less problems (real or perceived) for the MD or patient and - for all foreseeable practical reasons - works - is going to be used.

There is NO ONE drug for one patient mentality with MDs.

The BS demotion brings so much mirth to so many.
-->
I've sold BCR/ABL testing for years. My question is what do you want from your brand specialists? I've been tempted to apply for a position in the west, and have been in Oncology since 1988 as a Tech and rep. I'm older so probably wouldn't be considered, but wonder what the conditions are like. How are you selling around FISH and genomic typing of CML which is becoming more popular with Oncologists. Agree GLV is pretty much the standard. What are you doing to compete with it? No Onc I know thinks of a 1 drug 1 test approach to a patient, so I'm confused with what is being offered here.
-->
We talk MMR etc. We talk tests etc - but the reality is most of our MDs don't care.

Most docs use GLV irst choice. If the patient isn't complaining about side effects, great. If milestones are basically "there" great. When one or the other becomes a problem, then the MD will think about a switch. GLV is a favorite with most of 'em. We don't sell it for CML anymore, but I promise you - the MDs use it - will still use it first - and they ain't got no big real reason not to.

Tasigna's market share isn't blowing anybody's doors off the hinges.
-->
Thanks for the reply! Pretty much what I thought. I see GVL used all the time. I am seeing more Onc Docs wanting more tumor sensitivity testing, but as you well know this aint micro. That will be down the road a few years. Right now I'm skeptical of selling it, but I do. Appreciate the info.
-->
There is no appreciation of the disparity in pricing for 340B either. When Gleevec goes generic, you will see shares fall even more for Tasigna.Novartis loves to act like the competition is inferior, even their own competitor. While Tasigna has advantages, is it enough to pay two to five times more for it?
-->
GLV beats 'em all. Works exceedingly well, no dieting and is cheaper. If it fails, there is zero data to prove that having started with a different TKI wouldn't have done the same, or that a different TKI would have avoided "that" problem in the first place. Zero. Nada proof.

Because we believe MDs lack the ability to reason - we don't hear them chuckle when we leave their office.
-->
Yeah, - maybe you should read that poster's last line. I've yet to meet a Hem/Onc that didn't have first hand knowledge (like they work with patients every F'n day) didn't knew more about side effects (they poison people on a daily basis), didn't know more about patient responses (GeeZUS - they have more paperwork than we'll ever have) than any NVS Pres. Club, Corner Stone winner ever will.

What a F'n deluded idiot - practice selling. HAHAHAHAHAHA Some little pharma deb college graduate get's their training - and they're going out to do battle with somebody who has trained for 8 years or better - has everyday working experience with TKI's and show them a study that's years old. That's your NVS rep.

While you bust you're butt ordering their lunch - while they're scooping food on the plate - they're laughing at you.
-->
Musta hit a nerve.

This ain't rocket science...it's about relationship and credibility.

And if you don't think it's about selling then why is bosutinib gaining so much market share? Most docs (even with 8 years training, and 6 month of that in Hem) have little info in how to best treat a CML patient. Too many rely on what the rep says.....get off your high horse, dude.
-->
Maybe the Pfizer reps are just better than you are!
-->
You're right it ain't rocket science. Personality, relationship and credibility get you in the office - but no MD is going to risk his patient's welfare on a pharma pimp's say so. Your MD might ask you an insightful question from time to time, but he's going to refer to partners on what's "practice." They don't call you for consult - you F'n know that.

Most offices look at Reps as nice, bring lunch, and "help" with reimbursement issues - sometimes we actually do help - but we're not that important. To think differently is just self preservation. Pharma Reps (including myself) are simply lucky that Management is still willing to fund our salaries..
-->
Poster isn't wrong IMO - bosutinib is gaining because the MDs don't listen to what Reps say as much as what they bring - which is LUNCH!

If the MDs believed there was a REAL difference in TKIs, or Tas was so damn great - you better believe the MDs wouldn't play with anything else. Hem Reps aren't being out sold, their product just isn't the only word. WORD
-->
Hahaha I know it's stupid, - I'm not sure it's unethical, per se, but it does put you at odds with standard practice recommendations. Theoretically a physician can do whatever they decide is best as long as they have the documentation in hand to avoid losing a lawsuit.

Academic based physicians might go there from time to time but my guys out in the field wouldn't initiate that action on their own.

Doesn't matter what Brand wants - it's what you bring to the office in the way of knowing your MD that matters.