Effient worldwide sales slid to a tiny $3million Q4 09

Great Pep talk.

You must be one of those home office training douches who has no clue what is being talked about in the field.

Go tell your biggest IC that Plavix doesn't work and see how they respond to you.

Get a clue Douche!

I did today..correction he did today, and said he switched them to effient. Is happening more and more. Now whoever said the top rep in the nation has only 200 rx, is smoking. Maybe you need to look at the AL territory and the KC territory, where protocal has all patients getting effient upon discharge.

There are several that simply use IPA testing procedures and they are starting to get more and more scripts. It will happen. You plavix reps, I love the distractions you all try to throw out there. I think your concerned because in 1.5 years you clealry will be laid off, since it is going generic.
 






Alabama? Leaders in Intervention? How about Columbia, Duke, Harvard, Tufts? They have yet to use it. Are they not "thought leaders in Interventional Cardiology? Nobody is quoting Alabama.
 






I did today..correction he did today, and said he switched them to effient. Is happening more and more. Now whoever said the top rep in the nation has only 200 rx, is smoking. Maybe you need to look at the AL territory and the KC territory, where protocal has all patients getting effient upon discharge.

There are several that simply use IPA testing procedures and they are starting to get more and more scripts. It will happen. You plavix reps, I love the distractions you all try to throw out there. I think your concerned because in 1.5 years you clealry will be laid off, since it is going generic.

lol you are a bitter pri c k lol

Effient is a sad mistake...I have a few ICs who tried it....nose bleeds....two fatal bleeds in one territory...maybe more....my few docs who tried it are cooling off, fast...in fact, their experiences with e are reinforcing their years of clinical success with PLAVIX !!!!!!!! They are saying, "WE know Plavix, why switch?"
 






Alabama? Leaders in Intervention? How about Columbia, Duke, Harvard, Tufts? They have yet to use it. Are they not "thought leaders in Interventional Cardiology? Nobody is quoting Alabama.

Good points. I left a office today, totally with my ass handed to me. This is a tough drug to sale, Plavix will not be replaced. However, this drug is better than plavix in patients with ACS. Every single Physician has told me that. Even those that a couple of months ago were dead set against it. The IPA issue starting to really sink in. The problem is right now, physicians are getting their feet wet, and using it in plavix failures, resistant, or allergic, or if they do IPA testing. As the success's from this filter, like in San Diego or in Alabama, or other hospitals up east, and then IPA testing is incorporated by Insurance company's as a cost effective measure based on the data presented to them last Nov/Dec, that showed Effient in the long run actually saves money due to prevention of recurrent MI's on average, IPA testing will become the norm, and the reality will be Effient will gain more and more market share. Now, gaining more and more market share does not mean more than Plavix, that will never happen, but probably 15-20% peak.

AZ new drug, has some serious issues it will have to sort out dealing with other cardio vascular matters outside of bleeding, and if doctors are loading in the cath lab, there is no benefit of being reversable. Their main benefit is CV death benefit, vs Plavix. Keep in mind they have no head to head vs Effient, and the ratio the beat Plavix by in primary end points was not more than what Effient beat plavix by. Also by the Time they come to market, Plavix will be Generic or damm near generic so their timing is worse than ours.

So the fact is plavix reps can get on here, and hype up bleeding or our slow start all they want. I ask then to produce the trajectory of Plavix vs aspirin when it started. I launched Plavix so I know the trajectory, it was slow as well. Also, the true measure will be by June, as this is generally a cath lab initiated drug. Most cath labs did not get effient in it until nov, and most of the initial purchases was stocking. Jan-june sales will show where this is going. We are already starting to get sales, reorders.

Bleeding, address their concerns about this with the facts. Do not leave until you provide the facts, and not allow plavix reps to paint a false picture. As them if the bleeding risk that plavix plus aspirin was greater than aspirin. If so..Ask them then why would they make a change based on a 2.1 risk reduction benefit and statistically significantincreased risk of bleeding back in when Plavix launched, but now when there is Effient with a 2.2 absolute risk reduction with no statically significant increase in major bleeding, why the inertia. ALWAYS WORKS!!!! PROBLEM IS HABIT.

We cant product plavix registry trial data, but physicans know it. As them what it is, then relate the reasons why they changed then, and how to overcome the inertia now.
 






Everything said here is fine, but there are some points that are more important. Plavix is tier two on EVERY formulary in the nation. Plavix goes generic in 2011. The bleeding issue is not insignificant. Finally, the AZ drug may be the best yet. It is a perfect storm. Effient is not going to be a blockbuster.
 






Everything said here is fine, but there are some points that are more important. Plavix is tier two on EVERY formulary in the nation. Plavix goes generic in 2011. The bleeding issue is not insignificant. Finally, the AZ drug may be the best yet. It is a perfect storm. Effient is not going to be a blockbuster.

Look at the P value around timi major bleeds in the patients less than 75 years of age, greater than 60 kg, or no stroke... You need to learn your data. If the P value is greater than.05 then it statistically insignificant. What your allowing is Sanofi reps to paint a picture of bleeds, you need to spell out that it was minor bleeds that was the difference, then ask the physicians what was the increased risk of bleeding of Plavix plus aspirin over aspirin ?

Same think like our CV death. Numerically we show a benefit, but because the P value is higher than .05, it is statistically insignificant, and thus the fda does not allow us to claim this, when in fact AZ does have a p value of less than .05 and thus they can make this claim. Now where we have CV death benefits is in Recurrent MI's, and this is huge.

I suggest you truly learn your data. Understand why they made the switch to use Plavix back 12 years ago, and relate that to what is happening today. It is the same thing, other than habit. I am personally having a lot of success (except for today), when understanding exactly why the doctor switched to plavix (if old enough) and then why he is concerned now. Our bleeds in our appropriate patient in the Timi major group is not statisticlaly more than theirs, and if they want to point to numerical issue then it relates to 1 additional bleed for every 200 patients. Ask them how many actual PCi's do they see each year. Many, most do not see 200 per year, so what we are talking about is a risk that they will not see on average once a year, if they added up all their patients they see each year, but yet and still the benefit that they switched and started using plavix on (2.1) is less than the absolute risk reduction effient shows HEAD TO HEAD OVER PLAVIX...

Finally, in the diabetes group...Plavix on recent study where they looked at the loading loading dose of 600, showed NO BENEFIT TO THE PATIENTS THAT HAD DIABETES, whether they loaded with 300 or 600.

Learn your data, understand how it benefits your physician and understand truly what their concerns are, and call the plavix reps false detailing on the carpet...I seriously have done this and sometimes it gets no traction, but most of the time it results in the physicians agreeing that their detialing was a bit misleading as they are trying to relate everything to the overall patient population, which we are not. Smart on their part, because yes they can indeed point to this data in the timi 38, but if you know your data and have a good relationship with your physician, it is easy to discredit this, and switch back,,"did plavix hype up their increased risk of bleeding when they where trying to get you to write plavix plus aspirin over aspirin?"...
 






Look at the P value around timi major bleeds in the patients less than 75 years of age, greater than 60 kg, or no stroke... You need to learn your data. If the P value is greater than.05 then it statistically insignificant. What your allowing is Sanofi reps to paint a picture of bleeds, you need to spell out that it was minor bleeds that was the difference, then ask the physicians what was the increased risk of bleeding of Plavix plus aspirin over aspirin ?

Same think like our CV death. Numerically we show a benefit, but because the P value is higher than .05, it is statistically insignificant, and thus the fda does not allow us to claim this, when in fact AZ does have a p value of less than .05 and thus they can make this claim. Now where we have CV death benefits is in Recurrent MI's, and this is huge.

I suggest you truly learn your data. Understand why they made the switch to use Plavix back 12 years ago, and relate that to what is happening today. It is the same thing, other than habit. I am personally having a lot of success (except for today), when understanding exactly why the doctor switched to plavix (if old enough) and then why he is concerned now. Our bleeds in our appropriate patient in the Timi major group is not statisticlaly more than theirs, and if they want to point to numerical issue then it relates to 1 additional bleed for every 200 patients. Ask them how many actual PCi's do they see each year. Many, most do not see 200 per year, so what we are talking about is a risk that they will not see on average once a year, if they added up all their patients they see each year, but yet and still the benefit that they switched and started using plavix on (2.1) is less than the absolute risk reduction effient shows HEAD TO HEAD OVER PLAVIX...

Finally, in the diabetes group...Plavix on recent study where they looked at the loading loading dose of 600, showed NO BENEFIT TO THE PATIENTS THAT HAD DIABETES, whether they loaded with 300 or 600.

Learn your data, understand how it benefits your physician and understand truly what their concerns are, and call the plavix reps false detailing on the carpet...I seriously have done this and sometimes it gets no traction, but most of the time it results in the physicians agreeing that their detialing was a bit misleading as they are trying to relate everything to the overall patient population, which we are not. Smart on their part, because yes they can indeed point to this data in the timi 38, but if you know your data and have a good relationship with your physician, it is easy to discredit this, and switch back,,"did plavix hype up their increased risk of bleeding when they where trying to get you to write plavix plus aspirin over aspirin?"...

you need to be sedated cumstain
 












Look at the P value around timi major bleeds in the patients less than 75 years of age, greater than 60 kg, or no stroke... You need to learn your data. If the P value is greater than.05 then it statistically insignificant. What your allowing is Sanofi reps to paint a picture of bleeds, you need to spell out that it was minor bleeds that was the difference, then ask the physicians what was the increased risk of bleeding of Plavix plus aspirin over aspirin ?

Same think like our CV death. Numerically we show a benefit, but because the P value is higher than .05, it is statistically insignificant, and thus the fda does not allow us to claim this, when in fact AZ does have a p value of less than .05 and thus they can make this claim. Now where we have CV death benefits is in Recurrent MI's, and this is huge.

I suggest you truly learn your data. Understand why they made the switch to use Plavix back 12 years ago, and relate that to what is happening today. It is the same thing, other than habit. I am personally having a lot of success (except for today), when understanding exactly why the doctor switched to plavix (if old enough) and then why he is concerned now. Our bleeds in our appropriate patient in the Timi major group is not statisticlaly more than theirs, and if they want to point to numerical issue then it relates to 1 additional bleed for every 200 patients. Ask them how many actual PCi's do they see each year. Many, most do not see 200 per year, so what we are talking about is a risk that they will not see on average once a year, if they added up all their patients they see each year, but yet and still the benefit that they switched and started using plavix on (2.1) is less than the absolute risk reduction effient shows HEAD TO HEAD OVER PLAVIX...

Finally, in the diabetes group...Plavix on recent study where they looked at the loading loading dose of 600, showed NO BENEFIT TO THE PATIENTS THAT HAD DIABETES, whether they loaded with 300 or 600.

Learn your data, understand how it benefits your physician and understand truly what their concerns are, and call the plavix reps false detailing on the carpet...I seriously have done this and sometimes it gets no traction, but most of the time it results in the physicians agreeing that their detialing was a bit misleading as they are trying to relate everything to the overall patient population, which we are not. Smart on their part, because yes they can indeed point to this data in the timi 38, but if you know your data and have a good relationship with your physician, it is easy to discredit this, and switch back,,"did plavix hype up their increased risk of bleeding when they where trying to get you to write plavix plus aspirin over aspirin?"...


Hey data boy... make sure you know what you are talking about. You obviously weren't trained in data manipulation or medical informatics. Just to let you know, the P-value does not always have to be 0.05 as a set point for statistical significance. It depends on what type of trial you are conducting (superiority vs non-inferiority), and depends on what the power of the trial is set at. All of this together let's you know if a company is full of shit by keeping the requirements of the trial watered-down. But I'm sure you already knew that. Simply put, you (and I mean every rep from every company) can take any trial and stick it straight up your ass. The only way you are going to get your IC is if your patients have a particular insurance and that has your product as Tier 2. Everybody needs to get this through their head; sales is not dependent upon the rep, but behind every other factor. To explain shortly, plavix going generic=Insurance companies putting a DUR in place for Effient. How do I know this? I used to read through all of those damn trials and put those DURs in place. Then, when a MD would call up and ask why they couldn't use a particular drug, it's this simple to explain... It costs too much! That's it, bottom line. Money for the insurance companies. Do you think they give a shit about secondary prophylaxis? Nope, that's under major medical. Sorry that this hasn't been going the best for all of you and Lilly. I really hope money spent in development can be recuperated. I'm tired of seeing the insurance companies screw the industry. As a disclaimer, I'm not a rep and do not work for either Lilly or SA.
 






Plavix rep..... Just watch each month another hospital system starts using, then this starts to grow exponentially. Just a matter of time.

LOLOLOL we have forgotten about that sh it drug, as have physicians...we are counseling physicians on appropriate use of Plavix in stroke and PAD......oh yeah. you have a black box warning.......bleed bitch....your drug does
 






LOLOLOL we have forgotten about that sh it drug, as have physicians...we are counseling physicians on appropriate use of Plavix in stroke and PAD......oh yeah. you have a black box warning.......bleed bitch....your drug does

Hmmm funny very funny. So help me understand, who will be unemployed next august, because plavix is going generic.
 






So i am delusional or a liar because I my physicians have identified that the IPA on patients taking plavix, in general is not sufficient, and have a meeting 2/8 to vote on switching all patients in house that get an OAP to get effient, and have loading restricted to the cath lab, removing the risk of loading a patient that will go to cabg and does not fit our criteria.

I think if you sit back and look at the facts, and not get caught up in what Plavix reps are trying to say to distort the truth, you will see that effient is a better drug than plavix in 80% of the patients taking these drugs.

Whats funny is that many effient reps let plavix reps out detail them on their own study (timi 38). If you knew the FACTS surrounding the study, you would know that major bleeds in our group vs the plavix showed 0 statistical significance. 0! however in many areas we are allowing plavix reps to paint this picture that our bleeding is so serious. Yes in those patients that go to cabg, or in the patients older than 75, who had a previous stroke, or less tha 60 yes. The key is I negotiated with my hospitals to have it restricted to these patients to take the guess work out of this for the physicians. In the short run my manager thought i was giving away scripts, now he loves me for it.

Finally. IPA IPA IPA. You win if you repeatedly show them how weak Plavix IPA is, and compare it to Effient, then point out the recurring mi's that patients come back with. If you were a patient, would you want to be put BACK, on the same oap that you had a recurring mi on and that has shown to not be as effective as Effient, and I could be one of those non-responders that plavis reps are trying their hardest to minimize.

Effient reps, you have to stop losing your own battle. We have a superior drug, for 80% of the patients, plavix is not the issue, Time is the issue. In time we would over take plavix, but our pricing and plavix going generic is the challenge. Sooner or later almost all hosptials will start some type of ipa or genetic testing, Cardio vascular surgeons want it, ic's are starting to want it. When they do, they will realize how effient not allows loading on the table and not use as much integrellin or reopro and not as much angio max, saving them money, but also they get mich higher platlet inhibition IMMEDIATELY.

Plavix reps, great job distorting the truth nationwide. Great job getting physicians to think of the bleeding, and think this applyes to all patients. great job getting them to ignore all the recurring mi's that patients continue to have on your product, or the weak IPA. Great job getting them to ignore the repeated fda warnings, updated the heart. org's update showing the non-responders is real. Great job! However in my area it is not working.

yes you are delusional.the drug is dangerous, no self respecting person could promote it
 






yes you are delusional.the drug is dangerous, no self respecting person could promote it

As sung by Johnny Cash :

I hear Effient a comin'
It's rollin' 'round the bend,
And I ain't seen the sales
Since, I don't know when,
I'm stuck in Lilly Prison,
And time keeps draggin' on,
But that Effient keeps a-rollin',
On down to Sales of None.
 
























Does anyone know if the nosebleeds everyone refers to were differientiated between heparin and angiomax? Was there more blleds on heparin?

Moron, the nosebleeds were not acute....they were post discharge, as warned in the lengthy patient warnings...bleeding nose,bleeding gums, shaving bleeding, fatal bleeding...see the theme?
 






I just wanted to point out that as I predicted almost a year ago- Effient is starting to really build momentum and is getting quite a bit of use nationwide. Not going to be as big as Lilly initially had hoped- but it is big enough to justify our sales force!

Cardio is the safest division in the company right now and I'm glad I made the jump over!
 






I just wanted to point out that as I predicted almost a year ago- Effient is starting to really build momentum and is getting quite a bit of use nationwide. Not going to be as big as Lilly initially had hoped- but it is big enough to justify our sales force!

Cardio is the safest division in the company right now and I'm glad I made the jump over!

Funniest post EVER
 






[/QUOTE]

Cardio is the safest division in the company right now and I'm glad I made the jump over![/QUOTE]

Ha ha! Sure its is... what you meant to say is you're glad they made you "bend over"!!