Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Abbott' started by Anonymous, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:19 AM.
Does anyone have this information ? I would appreciate it, no nonsense please.....
First patent looks to expire 2013 so I guess that would be on the original uncoated version?
Who cares..nobody can tolerate the shit anyway!
It doesn't need to go generic..You can make this without FDA regulation.
#2 is correct. #4 is wrong. The delivery system (extended release) is patented.
You are a chowderhead. A company can not make this product "without FDA regulation". There are a lot of things you can make "without FDA regulation": War, hot cocoa, hay while the sun shines, love, a move, but neither Niaspan nor a generic for it, can be made "without FDA regulation", assuming you want to sell in in the US of A.
I think what he's saying is that Niacin is a supplement! Niacin and Slow Niacin are both available OTC but they're still controlled by the FDA! Anyone that wants to make an extended release formaulation of Niacin can do so but they'll still have to go through the FDA and there's not the $ there to make it happen! Tons of slow release delivery systems available to any drug that will work that way! Extra side effects with Niaspan that also deter a new competitor! Again who cares?
Let me give you a little hint to help you out: The period key "." is located in the bottom right hand corner of your key board. That key is your friend. Please learn to use it.
You might want to brush up on your Niacin backgrounder for the year or so you have left to promote it. Niacin preparations are dietary supplements not OTC drugs. They are NOT regulated by the FDA and there is not regulation as to what is in them or what delivery system they have. Now, I am sure the older formulations of Niaspan (IR and SR) are available and are regulated by the FDA but who would use those anyway. Question: when a dr. shows up as writing Niacin on polaris, what is that referring to? The older forms of Niaspan? Nobody seems to know the answer to this one.
Perhaps the future of niacin is in the supplement form. Why should the FDA regulate the same products that are available as a dietary supplement???
Niaspan's patent expires in September 2013. Not much time left. Not much to hope for. Generic atorvastatin may hurt because it'll further chip away at therapeutic intensification. Docs will delay use thinking the CETP inhibitor knights are going to soon come riding to the rescue (unlikely soon). Merck will run resistance to this approach until their own niacin comes along (if it makes it) then they'll switch in an instant from pitching worthless zetia to crooning about niacin like they were always fans (NOT!). Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Abbott will do whatever it can to get in its own way (unwittingly) and suppress niacin. Sigh
Guess Abbott will take over Amarin with AMR101 soon (see http://investor.amarincorp.com/releases.cfm).
What shows up in the "niacin" category is probably Niacor....the only Rx Immediate Release crystalline niacin which many old school niacin believers feel is the gold standard and it requires an Rx.
Patents of note expire 2011 & 2013....not important because Kos made a "greenmail" agreement with Barr (now Teva) to allow authorized generics in 2011.
Only 6-9 months left.
Yep, the bottom is gonna fall out. No new indications in the offing either that could hope to get us out patent expiry's starting in 2011.
Abbott has shown its incompetence in its inability to exploit a product which Kossies tossed in our laps and could've taken off but didn't.
I can tolerate it and do. I never get flushes and have no side affects AT ALL...on the other hand I have tried 3 different statins and had major side affects with all of them. I'm grateful for this solution, but the cost is ridiculous! So I am hoping a generic will be available soon. Will watch for it in 2013 as some of the posters have indicated.
Last 4 CETP failed. Doubt next two will get into heavy rotation without outcomes trial.
34 years ago!
So is a generic available now, 2012, or is it 2013? or 2011?
The real problem is the lack of outcomes data for raising HDL, and Abbott's latest spin for Niaspan is to ditch talking about non-HDL and talk up N's efficacy in HDL and TGs. Do you see a pattern here? Our dyslipidemia products are in free fall, the company keeps trying to revive them with the latest "expectation", and reps are lost as to how to promote the portfolio. When your monthly sales goals decline through the year, it's a pretty good sign the end is near for Cardiovascular Care.