Anyone know who the new rep in Jax is? Last couple of reps were clueless about perio. They all have a mantra but no real knowledge. J&J need to take a closer look at dental hygienists to fill their sales team!
Rep in Jacksonville, FL
- Thread starter Anonymous
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
Easy now.... perio is a very complex disease, must take time to study... genious
You are preaching to the choir. No need to be condescending. My point is that reps should have a better understanding of the disease process if they are going to successfully sell a product like Arestin. Dentists/Hygienists see through it like glass. Not a slam just an observation.
Yes, most do have a good understanding and actually at times more so than some clinicians. Actually OraPharma also has hygiene educators in each region to help the accout managers in just these areas. They aid us within accounts and a ton of other things, so if the local account manager isn't asking them to see your practice, ask. I'm sure any clinical questions you are not getting from the sales person could be answered in this manner.
But, hiring hygienists in sales position is always something OraPharma has done. There are several on our sales force now. The one thing I've noticed though is that many, NOT ALL, don't have sales experience or are 'cut out' for sales. Though we learned at a recent meeting we are creating a dental educator position with 3 or so hygienists. That should be cool and more organized and at more of a national level then the hygiene educators most of the regions have.
But, hiring hygienists in sales position is always something OraPharma has done. There are several on our sales force now. The one thing I've noticed though is that many, NOT ALL, don't have sales experience or are 'cut out' for sales. Though we learned at a recent meeting we are creating a dental educator position with 3 or so hygienists. That should be cool and more organized and at more of a national level then the hygiene educators most of the regions have.
if you have an understanding of Perio then you would know Arestin is a scam
signed
The ADA
signed
The ADA
The majority of Dentists and RDH's are frauds, and are jokes when it comes to clinical. They are artists of the teeth they are not the oral health practioners... that job is filled by Perio's. It is sad that dentists actually make more than M.D.'s I guess that is due to them placing all of those veneers and crowns on bleeding moving teeth in 9MM pockets. Clueless or charlatans...
Funny you say that because when I've talked to them about the oral health side, they all respond to it. It doesn't mean they all fall over for it, but it is in their heads. The new stuff that we saw at the Q1 meetings should get some more of the customers at least linking us to good oral health. Maybe.
How sad for all of you. Why do you think the territory was dead for so long?
To the first post Re: Jacksonville Reps:
I was educator for this area for the bulk of the time that there was coverage in Jax. I thought the reps were great. I was always amazed at the level of knowledge they had about perio. Yes, the disease complex and the overall implications for oral and systemic health are being researched and in the literature regularly. I loved the educator position and was sorry to see the territory close. I would be interested in this position again if OraPharma decides to use educators again. Arestin does work, keep spreading the word!
I was educator for this area for the bulk of the time that there was coverage in Jax. I thought the reps were great. I was always amazed at the level of knowledge they had about perio. Yes, the disease complex and the overall implications for oral and systemic health are being researched and in the literature regularly. I loved the educator position and was sorry to see the territory close. I would be interested in this position again if OraPharma decides to use educators again. Arestin does work, keep spreading the word!
I am sorry that you feel the DMD's and RDH's are a fraud. Quite the contrary, they are highly educated and are most definately ORAL HEALTH PRACTICIONERS. In many cases the dental hygienists has a much greater understanding and skill of the periodontal condition than the general practioner. Arestin is a great adjunct to periodontal theapy, and have used it many times in my practice with much success. My only complaint is the cost of the product. It seems the company has priced it in a way that becomes ineffective to both the dental practice and to the patient. When a practice has to purchase a box of only 24 compules to the tune of $475 a box, to pass that on to the patient when insurance most likely will not cover it becomes a shock factor to the patient. A systemic dose of minocycine over a period of time proves to be just as effective as the locally delivered antibiotic, and costs significantly less. But, that is just my fraudulent joke of an opinion from a Registered Dental Hygienist.
I would love to see this study the poster above was referring to when stating this,
"A systemic dose of minocycine over a period of time proves to be just as effective as the locally delivered antibiotic,....."
Oh wait, then they said it was their opinion. I get it, trying to pull of opinion as proven evidence. I hate it when evidence based science, or lack thereof, gets in the way of a good opinion. My opinion is that the poster above is looking for an excuse not to do their job.
Isn't it curious that clinicians can educate the patients about high cost implant placement, but can't educate them on high cost antibiotic therapy. Pick and chose your area of expertise. If you are more confident in the aesthetic component of dentistry, fine. If you would prefer to maintain the prophy aspect of your mill, fine. Just don't make up science to conform to your lack of effort in controlling perio disease.
"A systemic dose of minocycine over a period of time proves to be just as effective as the locally delivered antibiotic,....."
Oh wait, then they said it was their opinion. I get it, trying to pull of opinion as proven evidence. I hate it when evidence based science, or lack thereof, gets in the way of a good opinion. My opinion is that the poster above is looking for an excuse not to do their job.
Isn't it curious that clinicians can educate the patients about high cost implant placement, but can't educate them on high cost antibiotic therapy. Pick and chose your area of expertise. If you are more confident in the aesthetic component of dentistry, fine. If you would prefer to maintain the prophy aspect of your mill, fine. Just don't make up science to conform to your lack of effort in controlling perio disease.
I am a biologist, not a dental health professional, but, after looking at the FDA label for Arestin, it sure looks more like a money-making scam than a useful product. In the clinical studies the average pre-treatment pocket depth was about 5.8 mm. With standard scraping and root planing (SRP) alone, the pocket depth was reduced an average of about 1.2 mm to a final depth of about 4.6 mm. With SRP plus the expensive Arestin antibiotic treatment, the pocket depth was reduced an average of about 1.4 mm to a final depth of about 4.4 mm.
That 0.2 mm difference in pocket depth reduction seems to have narrowly reached statistical significance, so the FDA approved it. But even if it is assumed that the 0.2 mm difference is real, there seems to be no study or claim made that the difference between 4.4 mm and 4.6 mm final pocket depth has any clinical relevance to justify the costs (including time spent at multiple visits) and the potential side-effects of the drug.
What am I missing here?
That 0.2 mm difference in pocket depth reduction seems to have narrowly reached statistical significance, so the FDA approved it. But even if it is assumed that the 0.2 mm difference is real, there seems to be no study or claim made that the difference between 4.4 mm and 4.6 mm final pocket depth has any clinical relevance to justify the costs (including time spent at multiple visits) and the potential side-effects of the drug.
What am I missing here?
The phase 4 clinical study had similar results to the data I summarized above, and it was authored by employees of the company that sells it and others who were paid to do the study for them. Excuse my skepticism over this snake oil.
You might want to re-read the results with glasses & not a microscope. While you are at it, find room with windows.
I have turned my microscope off and opened the shades. Now, you stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Goodson et al. (paper with OraPharma, Inc. co-author). J Periodontol 78:1568 (2007). Minocycline HCl Microspheres Reduce Red-Complex Bacteria in Periodontal Disease Therapy.
SRP alone reduced bacteria by 5.03%, and SRP + Arestin reduced bacteria by 6.49%. WOW! The difference between those two tiny percentages was statistically significant, but was it really clinically significant? The probing depth and clinical attachment improvements were around 0.35 mm (as opposed to the 0.2 mm reported in the FDA studies), but the SRP alone still did 90% of the work.
Corteli et al. Journal of Oral Sci 50:259 (2008). A double-blind randomized clinical trial of subgingival minocycline for chronic periodontitis.
SRP vs. SRP + Arestin -> "...The results for bacterial frequencies showed no significant differences between groups (Fisher's Exact test, P < 0.05) or between time-points (Friedman test, P < 0.05). We failed to detect any differences between groups related to the presence of target pathogens for 12 months. The effects of both therapies on the microbial flora did not persist for 24 months."
Bonito (meta-analysis). J Periodontol 76:1227 (2005). Impact of Local Adjuncts to Scaling and Root Planing in Periodontal Disease Therapy: A Systematic Review.
"...Differences [in probing depth] between treatment and SRP-only groups in the baseline-to-follow-up period typically favored treatment groups but usually only modestly (e.g., from about 0.1 mm to nearly 0.5 mm) even when the differences were statistically significant. Effects for [clinical attachment level] gains were smaller and statistical significance less common. The marginal improvements in [probing depth] and [clinical attachment level] were a fraction of the improvement from SRP alone. Conclusions: Whether such improvements, even if statistically significant, are clinically meaningful remains a question. A substantial agenda of future research to address this and other issues (e.g., costs, patient-oriented outcomes) is suggested."
Well-played, huh?
Wow, you are very smart. Obama really needs to name you the next dental drug czar!