New Lumigan: What a joke

Discussion in 'Allergan' started by Anonymous, Sep 2, 2010 at 6:30 AM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    True- in a lot of instances, they don't- but the FDA allows a variance (+) or (-) of like 15% to 20%. For drugs that are specific like those for seizures, blood thinners you can't have that kind of swing because it could cause death. But for drugs that are generic like amoxicillin, pain meds, etc- doesn't matter if it takes a bit longer to get over your cold etc......Will a Glaucoma drug be one they look at??
     

  2. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    "that Travatan Z is 0.8mm Hg less efficacious than original Tavatan"
    SHOW ME!!!!
     
  3. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    look at your own study headed by lewis, you dipshit. there you'll find your 0.8mm Hg.
     
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Relax!! I am your friend.....
    The .8 you are refering is the 95% confidence interval which is +/- .8mm HG. IOP reductions were 7.3-8.5mm Hg without BAK and 7.4-8.4mm Hg for old Travatan. In conclusion, no difference. AHHHHHH, Next- In your PI for Lumigan .01 states max 7.5mmHg Meaning less effective, in press release max 7mm Hg reduction. Now a point or half a point not important for you guys???? You are going down.... 4 times BAK??? Dont worry doc same as Xalatan (What a joke)
    Now that you talk .8mm HG 95% confidence interval for Travatan ( If you knew what were you talking about, mmmmmm), The study or abstract you are showing for hyperimia rates, (Katz) states the 95% confidence interval +/- 1.5 mm Hg at all time points and +/- 1.0 at most time points) Now, what product is less effective??????
    I am your worst enemy..... I know my stuff and more than you know about yours.
    I will win this battle for sure..
    Over and Out
     
  5. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Hey nerd! doctors write for the rep they like most when there is no harm done by either drug. we now have a better AE profile and they like me better than my Alcon reps. My local Alcon reps are so sleazy and easy to hate therefore I win this battle. OUT!

    P.S. Keep talking about our product to all of your doctors we appreciate the help. You sound as defensive as we did when you launched that hunk of shit Trav Z, wave bye bye to your market share....douche
     
  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    lol, it's always so fun beating the allergan reps. they are like sheep who just spout off what marketing tells them, without doing their own homework. we are talking about your product and the drs are cracking up at your "we added more bak for better absorption/penetration"==translation breaking down cornea.

    we actually have leave behind studies to show drs, not laminated off label or data on file studies. just challenge the dr to get the rep to leave behind whatever study he is showing, it never happens.

    say goodbye to our market share? we are the number 2 pga in the US and most territories. that isn't going anywhere. you have no better efficacy than TZ and no better adverse events. dr, why rx a product that needs 4 times the bak to get more drug in the eye?

    too easy.

    just when you think things are getting dull, a gift like lumigan .01 makes things fun again.

    too easy.
     
  7. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    You gotta admit, selling 4 times the BAK isn't a cakewalk when most doctor's do not believe over the long term it's good for the cornea. And, the first question we get on every call is "What did you guys do, change the preservative?" uuum, no. And next, "Well, at least the hyperemia rate is dramatically reduced, right?"

    Wrong again doctor.

    This is Alphagan P .10% all over again. "Less drug exposure is better for the patient." And then we'll INFER on every single call that there is way less side effects because there is less drug. Nevermind that we have absolutely NO scientific data to back it up. Hell, we did it with Alphagan P .10% (all the docs thought it had less allergy, and it doesn't) why can't we do it with Lumigan .01%?

    Come on guys!! We're Allergan. Screw science. We're sales people. Who needs it!
     
  8. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Definitely someone drinking the koolaid. You have no common sense about the future of pharm prescriptions or healthcare change. Even if Lum/Lum X was a little better (which it is not), physicians will prescribe generics to save patients money. Patients are much more aware of prescription costs these days and are looking for ways to save money - the economy and job loses woke them up. It has nothing to do with whether Lum or Trav is better (they're the same).
     
  9. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    its the molecule structure that causes the ae's, not the concentration-stupid move w /Xaly going generic-whats wrong w/this therapeutic field?
     
  10. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Its like useless bitches in Cleveland OH "Lisa R. " useless, no brains, and only started here like three years ago. Sucks to be useless!
     
  11. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    As a patient using this stuff, I'm wondering why going from 0.03% to 0.01% isn't being done with more information going to the patient. So taking 1/3 the original dose isn't going to make my eye pressure go up? Is the dose-response linear or not? Not a word.

    This thread show exactly what patients mean to you people: $$$ and only $$$.
     
  12. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Will the .01% will grow lashes the same as .03%...just curious?
     
  13. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I stumbled upon this board comparing X, L & TZ

    My pressure did not change when I went from Lumigan .03 to .01. I noticed zero difference. Had to look up "BAK." Yikes...

    These people sell stuff. Like whores.


    I have to confess I chuckled at this one.
     
  14. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest


    There is no difference between lumigans and no difference between lumigans and the others. If you talk directly to investigators instead of listening to the garbage allergan is feeding us you can learn about how they twist results and twist results of other studies. They fail to disclose to you all studies. Allergan accuses alcon of cherry picking, but is guilty itself.
     
  15. #75 Anonymous, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:38 AM
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 7, 2016 at 9:11 PM
    Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Allergan rep here - there is no difference between X L and T, except X makes your eyes less red than the others including L 0.01. Besides that, X is also much cheaper and is killing us. Don't give me the company line that L is growing because we are dying out here.

    BTW BAK is bad for the ocular surface. We say it's not because it's in every drug, but it's bad. That doesn't mean Z is better, but BAK is bad. I wouldn't put that stuff in my eye everyday.