Surprise, Pfizer Study Says Lipitor Beats Generic Zocor

CNBC.com

Tuesday afternoon the "Journal of the American Medical Association" (JAMA) published a study showing that cheaper, generic heart drugs work just as well as more expensive, brand-name heart drugs.

Researchers looked at all sorts of cardiovascular medications including cholesterol fighters, also known as statins. The top-selling statin--the top-selling drug in the world, for that matter--is Lipitor from Pfizer (PFE). The pill rakes in around $13 billion a year, but sales growth has stalled since Zocor from Merck (MRK) went generic and companies, doctors and insurers started putting more patients on the cheaper alternative. The new JAMA study, which included clinical trials of generic Zocor, could presumably spur that trend.

PhRMA the drug industry's main lobbying organization, put out a statement late Tuesday on the JAMA study saying, "The contention that brand-name medicines drive up the cost of health care is fatally flawed. Without today's innovative brand-name drugs to legally copy, there would be no generic drug industry. Worse yet, there would be little hope of finding new treatments and cures for a wide range of debilitating--and often deadly--diseases."

• Brand-name drugs no better than generics

You expect a group like PhRMA to take a defensive position. That's its job. But I was surprised when this press release from Pfizer popped up in the inbox Wednesday morning (see link below) only hours after the JAMA study came out.

The communication touts the results of another study being published in "Mayo Clinic Proceedings" showing that Lipitor works 13 percent better than generic Zocor in preventing heart attacks, stroke, etc. The senior VP of Pfizer's global medical division, Dr. Michael Berelowitz, is quoted as saying, "The latest analysis adds to the wealth of real-world data from a number of different medical database analyses that suggest that patients who are treated with Lipitor may have a reduced risk of experiencing a cardiovascular event compared with patients who use simvastatin."

Simvastatin is the scientific, generic name for Zocor. And to drive home the point, the Dr. Berelowitz statement finishes with, "Findings such as these should be taken into account by those who may assume that medicines in a therapeutic class are interchangeable and provide similar outcomes."

That's an interesting opinion to be voiced so close on the heels of a much more prominent JAMA study that draws the exact opposite conclusion.

• Patients Taking Lipitor Had a Significantly Reduced Risk of Cardiovascular Events

Comments

[redbaron:]

'PhRMA the drug industry's main lobbying organization', does not that mean anything to you, Mike?

To me, it immediately brings into question any study that would mean selecting the brand name drug over the generic. The drug industry would certainly try to spin it the other way, but as the recent Harvard study indicates, this is just 'drug promotion', and not legitimate research.

How can an industry that spends twice as much on advertising and promotion, than it spends on research, expect to have it's sponsored studies accepted? I do not accept their research, and especially so when it is promoted by the industry lobbying group.

2008 Dec 03 12:18 PM

[Confused...:]

Help me understand if I missed something...I read JAMA as comparing generics vs brand name equivilents (i.e. Norvasc/Amlodipine) and I read the Mayo Clinic ariticle as Lipitor (Atoravastatin) vs Simvastatin. Why are they being compared when they say two different things?

2008 Dec 03 01:21 PM

[tb420:]

You did not miss a thing. Mike Huckman did. Atorvastatin did perform differently than simvastatin in the pfizer supported trial because they are DIFFERENT DRUGS. Huckman has displayed not only his failure to actually READ the studies, but also his ignorance of statins, and by extension, all medications. He should put away his "Jump to Clonclusions" mat and actually do his homework instead of cruising he internet for sports scores all day.

On Dec 03 01:21 PM Confused... wrote:

> Help me understand if I missed something...I read JAMA as comparing
> generics vs brand name equivilents (i.e. Norvasc/Amlodipine) and
> I read the Mayo Clinic ariticle as Lipitor (Atoravastatin) vs Simvastatin.
> Why are they being compared when they say two different things?

2008 Dec 03 01:31 PM

[Dan Jacome:]

not twice as much on promo vs R/D - more like 35% more on promo. 2x the number spent on R/D ad Id be aghast!

2008 Dec 03 02:03 PM

[JohnLL:]

Making statements like in the last paragraph of this article is irresponsible. While MH may want to justify this action as appropriate to a 'blog', nevertheless, the identical same article was published by CNBC where MH is writing as a reporter and analyst, not as a blogger. He also gave an on-air report where he referenced this article for further reading regarding his conclusion that the study published by Mayo was somehow contradicted by JAMA. I think it is about time for CNBC to fire him. We can't be reading every day an analyst reports from someone with an axe to grind against Pfizer or some undisclosed agenda for constant bashing.

2008 Dec 03 06:52 PM

[EarvinG:]

On Dec 03 01:31 PM tb420 wrote:

>
> You did not miss a thing. Mike Huckman did. Atorvastatin did perform
> differently than simvastatin in the pfizer supported trial because
> they are DIFFERENT DRUGS. Huckman has displayed not only his failure
> to actually READ the studies, but also his ignorance of statins,
> and by extension, all medications. He should put away his "Jump to
> Clonclusions" mat and actually do his homework instead of cruising
> he internet for sports scores all day.
>
> On Dec 03 01:21 PM Confused... wrote:

As the reader above, you are not confused, Mike Huckman is totally discombobulated. In his rush to dis' Pfizer yet again, he confused cardiovascular drugs (Norvasc/amlodipine generic) versus Lipitor/ simvastatin. What a deplorable rookie mistake. But wait, Huckman ain't no rookie he has be doing this blog for years. The best conclusion from Huckman's latest mistake is that if you want intelligent opinions go elsewhehere, but if want the latest unqualified Pfizer bashing, his blog is the place. Pathetic!

2008 Dec 03 06:56 PM

[redbaron:]

Daniel, all I can say is that you and I read different reports with different numbers. I have seen some reports of 3X drug promo costs vs R&D. I just had on CNBC, and I counted 4 consecutive drug ads, and that happens all day long. They don't do that for nothing. Spend the same amount for R&D and think of what could be accomplished.


On Dec 03 02:03 PM Daniel Jacome wrote:

> not twice as much on promo vs R/D - more like 35% more on promo.
> 2x the number spent on R/D ad Id be aghast!

2008 Dec 04 09:19 AM