Merck Heads for Another Catastrophe

A recent item from InVivoBlog about Merck (MRK) brought up some interesting points. They aren’t cheerful ones. The article is largely about Merck’s reputation, which has taken some dents in recent years, to put it lightly. The Vioxx debacle is the main reason for this, but the hits have kept on coming, such as the latest controversy over the release of the disappointing Vytorin study data.

So, although this is a painful question, perhaps it needs to be asked: remember when Merck was above all that stuff? Maybe there should be a “seemed” in that sentence somewhere; that might take some of the sting away. But the company really did have a singular reputation at one time. Depending on your point of view, you could have used words like “insular” or “arrogant” to describe the culture over there, but they were distinctive.

Merck didn’t merge with anyone. They stuck with targets and projects for years and years if they thought something would come out of them. And (until Vioxx) they avoided the sorts of disasters that seemed to hit other companies. That’s gone. Not all gone – they still seem to run on longer timelines over there – but one of the most distinctive things about the company was how it guarded its reputation, and that seems to have slipped down the list. They didn't have to do ad campaigns like this one. The company's trying to convince people, or convince themselves, that things haven't changed, but they're wrong.

The other thing that struck me about the article was about the development of the company’s CB-1 antagonist. That’s the same mechanism as rimonabant, Sanofi-Aventis’s (SNY) failed wonder drug for obesity (OK, it’s on the market as Acomplia in several countries, but considering what people had thought it would do, it’s a failure, all right). I question Merck’s judgment in pushing another compound into that area, although these programs do take on a life of their own. And as the In Vivo post points out, Merck’s current reputation of pushing every drug as hard as possible won’t help it when it comes to getting the drug through the FDA.

The biggest problem with rimonabant was the comparison of its side effects to its efficacy. It does seem to help people lose weight, although not to any startling extent, but in a large patient population, various psychiatric side effects showed up. Taranabant's side effect profile isn't yet clear. Merck is going to have to tread lightly, but can they? The situation is a bit too much like Vioxx, with a huge, lucrative market out there if you can just expand the patient population. And we can argue about just how bad Vioxx really was, and about its risk/benefit ratio, but that won't change the fact that it was a catastrophe for Merck. The last thing they need is another one. I don't think I would have picked this time to push another CB-1 antagonist forward, but I suppose we don't get to pick that sort of thing...

Comments

[ed silverman:]

Good observation. As an aside, Merck recently agreed to pay $670 million to settle charges that it failed to pay the appropriate rebates to Medicaid and other goverment health care programs, and also paid kickbacks to doctors and hospitals to induce them to prescribe various meds. This episode, however, began more than a decade ago. In other words, Vioxx may represent a turning point in Merck's business practices in the collective memory, but Merck was actually engaged in disturbing conduct even before the drugmaker was playing dodgeball with cardiovascular side effects. Granted, the Medicaid fraud took place after Roy Vagelos had left and it had nothing to do with development work, but it underscores that Merck was veering toward controversy quite some time ago.

Ed Silverman at Pharmalot

www.pharmalot.com/2008.../

2008 Feb 21 03:00 PM

[VintonCounty:]

Please don't write about something that you know nothing about.

2008 Feb 24 03:37 AM

[anonymous:]

I love it when the general public chimes in because now that they have been "briefed" by the media they know it all. Drug companies will always be the big bad wolf because everyone wants something for free. Drugs that make them skinny with no side effects, drugs that take their pain away..but still no side effects, drugs that lower cholesterol or keep them "normal" but still we don't want side effects. C'mon people wake up you are altering your body's chemical makeup it is designed to work in snyc...of course there are going to be side effects or dare I say it...DEATHS. Take off the blinders, drug companies take on an immense amount of risk all for the greater good of helping people...yes they make money that is what business does. If you only knew how much $ it actually takes to bring one successful drug to market then you may understand. Until you have all the facts I agree with the above poster...don't write or comment about something you know nothing about.

2008 Feb 24 10:16 AM

[Toxic Spit:]

I know less now than I knew before reading all this.

2008 Feb 27 01:09 PM