Okay people, it should be a given we’re better than Amitiza so Linzess is our only real competition. I’m tired of reading the negativity on these boards. Trulance is the EASIEST drug I’ve ever sold. It’s best-in-class, superior to Linzess and has and excellent safety profile compared to the horrible Linzess. I don’t care what corporate says, but the key to selling Trulance is selling the Uroguanylin story. If you aren’t selling the Uroguanylin story, you aren’t selling Trulance. Here’s to a great 2018, IBS-C, and more easy coin at the expense of those dirty Ironwood and sloppy Allergan reps, cheers!
Trulance vs Linzess
- Thread starter anonymous
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
Who are you “selling” that bullshit to. Certainly not doctors with a brain and a license.
Coverage sucks and Trulance barely works most of the time. 21% in fact. It's a me too drug.
Anytime you want to put up the numbers to back up your claims of “Best in Class” and “Superior to Linzess”, please feel free. We are all waiting....
Allergan, And Linzess' Misleading Side Effects
Life Sciences MillennialSep. 20, 2017 12:33 PM ET
Allergan allowing Linzess patients to have their dose reduced in their initial trials, unlike Synergy's Trulance, has resulted in misleading side effects.
The Linzess 72mcg dosing trial did not allow dose reductions, which proved my theory that Linzess is producing even higher diarrhea than originally thought.
Original Linzess trials, including the 27% of dose reductions, showed diarrhea of 16%, while not allowing the dose reductions showed a worsening 22%.
Synergy's Trulance has captured 13.3% market share in CIC, with no DTC campaign and 5x less of a salesforce, while being on the market for less than 6 months.
Synergy's Trulance is surpassing Linzess (72mcg) in market share, while Takeda's Amitiza has lost 10% in market share since Trulance's launch.
Over the course of the last several months, I have been very vocal about the chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) spaces. With this latest article, I hope to bring emphasis to a subtle difference seen in the trials for Linzess, a drug marketed by both Allergan (NYSE:AGN) and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:IRWD). This subtle difference I think is providing misleading side effects as it relates to Allergan's Linzess.
This subtle difference is something I had touched on earlier in another article of mine, seen here. The specific portion that I am referencing from my past article is also below:
Patient disruptions/interruptions were not allowed in Trulance studies, but were allowed in Linzess studies. Meaning, the percentage rate of adverse events for Linzess could have been much higher if patients weren't allowed to have their treatment disrupted.
When I mention, "patient disruptions/interruptions", I am referring to the 27% of Linzess patients who had their dosing reduced because of adverse events. Adverse events meaning diarrhea. The 27% of Linzess patients who had their dosing reduced was seen in the original Linzess studies ran long ago for their 145mcg and 290mcg doses. With patients being allowed to have their doses reduced, Allergan and Ironwood claimed that patients experienced diarrhea of 16% in these trials. The Linzess drug label can be seen here, along with a graphic displaying the 27% of patients who had their dosing reduced.
The important item to remember is that Trulance, marketed by Synergy Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:SGYP), did not allow patients to have their dosing reduced because of adverse reactions. Therefore, the 16% of patients who had diarrhea with Linzess most likely would have experienced higher diarrhea if they were not allowed to have their dose reduced. The best way to test my theory would be by looking at Linzess' new 72mcg dose trial, which did not allow for interruptions. That trial can be seen below:
The results of the 72mcg dosing trial (Trial 5), proved that my theory carries some weight. As you can see in the 72mcg trial, which did not allow for interruptions, the diarrhea rate for the 145mcg dose was worse off than what was originally thought (16% to now 22%). The diarrhea rate for the 72mcg dose is 19%. All of these rates are no comparison to the less than 5% of diarrhea seen in Trulance patients. Again, no patients were ever allowed to have their dose reduced in Trulance studies, which would make a comparison to the Linzess 72mcg trial more accurate.
NOTE: When looking at the Trulance and Linzess labels, don't get confused with "adverse reactions leading to discontinuation". This is a totally different metric and is unrelated to "adverse reactions leading to dose reductions", which is only on the Linzess label.
Also, to my likely critics, notice that the sample size in trial 5, the 72mcg dose trial, is nearly the same size as the original trials that were run. Therefore, the argument that the last Linzess trial was producing worse diarrhea because it was a smaller sample size carries little weight. The drug is producing worse diarrhea because patients were denied the ability to have their treatment interrupted.
Allergan's results from the Linzess 72mcg dose trial are a more accurate depiction of the drug's ability to produce significant diarrhea. Synergy's Trulance no longer has a 5% diarrhea vs. 16% diarrhea advantage against Linzess. It is more like 5% vs. 22%, which should further distinguish Trulance as the best in class treatment in this category.
When Synergy first released their Phase 3 data, it was stated by analysts that Synergy would have to produce less than 10% diarrhea to have an impact on or surpass Linzess eventually. With a 22% vs. 5% advantage now, Trulance is well on their way. In less than six months, Amitiza, marketed by Takeda, has lost 10% market share already. By this time next year, Amitiza probably would be dropping another 10%, which should start putting severe pressure on Takeda, if not already. Synergy has not even started their DTC campaign yet, and the company is not even approved for IBS-C. The approval for IBS-C in January, and the launch of Synergy's DTC campaign, are the weapons that will be used to capture market share away from Linzess.
Allergan's Linzess franchise should start feeling the heat next year from Trulance. Synergy also has a 250 person salesforce compared to 1,400 with Allergan. A potential buyout of Synergy from another big pharma company will put severe pressure on Allergan's plans against Trulance, as they're essentially increasing their salesforce substantially overnight.
Life Sciences MillennialSep. 20, 2017 12:33 PM ET
Allergan allowing Linzess patients to have their dose reduced in their initial trials, unlike Synergy's Trulance, has resulted in misleading side effects.
The Linzess 72mcg dosing trial did not allow dose reductions, which proved my theory that Linzess is producing even higher diarrhea than originally thought.
Original Linzess trials, including the 27% of dose reductions, showed diarrhea of 16%, while not allowing the dose reductions showed a worsening 22%.
Synergy's Trulance has captured 13.3% market share in CIC, with no DTC campaign and 5x less of a salesforce, while being on the market for less than 6 months.
Synergy's Trulance is surpassing Linzess (72mcg) in market share, while Takeda's Amitiza has lost 10% in market share since Trulance's launch.
Over the course of the last several months, I have been very vocal about the chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) spaces. With this latest article, I hope to bring emphasis to a subtle difference seen in the trials for Linzess, a drug marketed by both Allergan (NYSE:AGN) and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:IRWD). This subtle difference I think is providing misleading side effects as it relates to Allergan's Linzess.
This subtle difference is something I had touched on earlier in another article of mine, seen here. The specific portion that I am referencing from my past article is also below:
Patient disruptions/interruptions were not allowed in Trulance studies, but were allowed in Linzess studies. Meaning, the percentage rate of adverse events for Linzess could have been much higher if patients weren't allowed to have their treatment disrupted.
When I mention, "patient disruptions/interruptions", I am referring to the 27% of Linzess patients who had their dosing reduced because of adverse events. Adverse events meaning diarrhea. The 27% of Linzess patients who had their dosing reduced was seen in the original Linzess studies ran long ago for their 145mcg and 290mcg doses. With patients being allowed to have their doses reduced, Allergan and Ironwood claimed that patients experienced diarrhea of 16% in these trials. The Linzess drug label can be seen here, along with a graphic displaying the 27% of patients who had their dosing reduced.
The important item to remember is that Trulance, marketed by Synergy Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:SGYP), did not allow patients to have their dosing reduced because of adverse reactions. Therefore, the 16% of patients who had diarrhea with Linzess most likely would have experienced higher diarrhea if they were not allowed to have their dose reduced. The best way to test my theory would be by looking at Linzess' new 72mcg dose trial, which did not allow for interruptions. That trial can be seen below:
The results of the 72mcg dosing trial (Trial 5), proved that my theory carries some weight. As you can see in the 72mcg trial, which did not allow for interruptions, the diarrhea rate for the 145mcg dose was worse off than what was originally thought (16% to now 22%). The diarrhea rate for the 72mcg dose is 19%. All of these rates are no comparison to the less than 5% of diarrhea seen in Trulance patients. Again, no patients were ever allowed to have their dose reduced in Trulance studies, which would make a comparison to the Linzess 72mcg trial more accurate.NOTE: When looking at the Trulance and Linzess labels, don't get confused with "adverse reactions leading to discontinuation". This is a totally different metric and is unrelated to "adverse reactions leading to dose reductions", which is only on the Linzess label.
Also, to my likely critics, notice that the sample size in trial 5, the 72mcg dose trial, is nearly the same size as the original trials that were run. Therefore, the argument that the last Linzess trial was producing worse diarrhea because it was a smaller sample size carries little weight. The drug is producing worse diarrhea because patients were denied the ability to have their treatment interrupted.
Allergan's results from the Linzess 72mcg dose trial are a more accurate depiction of the drug's ability to produce significant diarrhea. Synergy's Trulance no longer has a 5% diarrhea vs. 16% diarrhea advantage against Linzess. It is more like 5% vs. 22%, which should further distinguish Trulance as the best in class treatment in this category.
When Synergy first released their Phase 3 data, it was stated by analysts that Synergy would have to produce less than 10% diarrhea to have an impact on or surpass Linzess eventually. With a 22% vs. 5% advantage now, Trulance is well on their way. In less than six months, Amitiza, marketed by Takeda, has lost 10% market share already. By this time next year, Amitiza probably would be dropping another 10%, which should start putting severe pressure on Takeda, if not already. Synergy has not even started their DTC campaign yet, and the company is not even approved for IBS-C. The approval for IBS-C in January, and the launch of Synergy's DTC campaign, are the weapons that will be used to capture market share away from Linzess.Allergan's Linzess franchise should start feeling the heat next year from Trulance. Synergy also has a 250 person salesforce compared to 1,400 with Allergan. A potential buyout of Synergy from another big pharma company will put severe pressure on Allergan's plans against Trulance, as they're essentially increasing their salesforce substantially overnight.
Allergan, And Linzess' Misleading Side Effects
Life Sciences MillennialSep. 20, 2017 12:33 PM ET
Allergan allowing Linzess patients to have their dose reduced in their initial trials, unlike Synergy's Trulance, has resulted in misleading side effects.
The Linzess 72mcg dosing trial did not allow dose reductions, which proved my theory that Linzess is producing even higher diarrhea than originally thought.
Original Linzess trials, including the 27% of dose reductions, showed diarrhea of 16%, while not allowing the dose reductions showed a worsening 22%.
Synergy's Trulance has captured 13.3% market share in CIC, with no DTC campaign and 5x less of a salesforce, while being on the market for less than 6 months.
Synergy's Trulance is surpassing Linzess (72mcg) in market share, while Takeda's Amitiza has lost 10% in market share since Trulance's launch.
Over the course of the last several months, I have been very vocal about the chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) spaces. With this latest article, I hope to bring emphasis to a subtle difference seen in the trials for Linzess, a drug marketed by both Allergan (NYSE:AGN) and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:IRWD). This subtle difference I think is providing misleading side effects as it relates to Allergan's Linzess.
This subtle difference is something I had touched on earlier in another article of mine, seen here. The specific portion that I am referencing from my past article is also below:
Patient disruptions/interruptions were not allowed in Trulance studies, but were allowed in Linzess studies. Meaning, the percentage rate of adverse events for Linzess could have been much higher if patients weren't allowed to have their treatment disrupted.
When I mention, "patient disruptions/interruptions", I am referring to the 27% of Linzess patients who had their dosing reduced because of adverse events. Adverse events meaning diarrhea. The 27% of Linzess patients who had their dosing reduced was seen in the original Linzess studies ran long ago for their 145mcg and 290mcg doses. With patients being allowed to have their doses reduced, Allergan and Ironwood claimed that patients experienced diarrhea of 16% in these trials. The Linzess drug label can be seen here, along with a graphic displaying the 27% of patients who had their dosing reduced.
NOTE: When looking at the Trulance and Linzess labels, don't get confused with "adverse reactions leading to discontinuation". This is a totally different metric and is unrelated to "adverse reactions leading to dose reductions", which is only on the Linzess label.
Also, to my likely critics, notice that the sample size in trial 5, the 72mcg dose trial, is nearly the same size as the original trials that were run. Therefore, the argument that the last Linzess trial was producing worse diarrhea because it was a smaller sample size carries little weight. The drug is producing worse diarrhea because patients were denied the ability to have their treatment interrupted.
Allergan's results from the Linzess 72mcg dose trial are a more accurate depiction of the drug's ability to produce significant diarrhea. Synergy's Trulance no longer has a 5% diarrhea vs. 16% diarrhea advantage against Linzess. It is more like 5% vs. 22%, which should further distinguish Trulance as the best in class treatment in this category.
Allergan's Linzess franchise should start feeling the heat next year from Trulance. Synergy also has a 250 person salesforce compared to 1,400 with Allergan. A potential buyout of Synergy from another big pharma company will put severe pressure on Allergan's plans against Trulance, as they're essentially increasing their salesforce substantially overnight.
Another underwater investor that is not on the front lines. Doctors want a drug that is covered. Trulance coverage sucks. End of story.
Synergy is so great yet all the insiders have bailed.
Beware!
Beware!
Product is good, job sucks. I took this position thinking similar buyout/payout like Salix. All this has done is stalled my career as its just an IBS drug- recruiters don't even view it as specialty. Mind as well be in primary care from a resume perspective. Its hard to be positive here anymore!
Yadayadayada. All bullshit. If Trushit was so good, we wouldn’t have to sell it. So, keep telling yourself that the future is bright and denying the truth and the inevitable. We were told we were hot crap on a log, but we’re really only cold turd on a twig.Allergan, And Linzess' Misleading Side Effects
Life Sciences MillennialSep. 20, 2017 12:33 PM ET
Allergan allowing Linzess patients to have their dose reduced in their initial trials, unlike Synergy's Trulance, has resulted in misleading side effects.
The Linzess 72mcg dosing trial did not allow dose reductions, which proved my theory that Linzess is producing even higher diarrhea than originally thought.
Original Linzess trials, including the 27% of dose reductions, showed diarrhea of 16%, while not allowing the dose reductions showed a worsening 22%.
Synergy's Trulance has captured 13.3% market share in CIC, with no DTC campaign and 5x less of a salesforce, while being on the market for less than 6 months.
Synergy's Trulance is surpassing Linzess (72mcg) in market share, while Takeda's Amitiza has lost 10% in market share since Trulance's launch.
Over the course of the last several months, I have been very vocal about the chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) spaces. With this latest article, I hope to bring emphasis to a subtle difference seen in the trials for Linzess, a drug marketed by both Allergan (NYSE:AGN) and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:IRWD). This subtle difference I think is providing misleading side effects as it relates to Allergan's Linzess.
This subtle difference is something I had touched on earlier in another article of mine, seen here. The specific portion that I am referencing from my past article is also below:
Patient disruptions/interruptions were not allowed in Trulance studies, but were allowed in Linzess studies. Meaning, the percentage rate of adverse events for Linzess could have been much higher if patients weren't allowed to have their treatment disrupted.
When I mention, "patient disruptions/interruptions", I am referring to the 27% of Linzess patients who had their dosing reduced because of adverse events. Adverse events meaning diarrhea. The 27% of Linzess patients who had their dosing reduced was seen in the original Linzess studies ran long ago for their 145mcg and 290mcg doses. With patients being allowed to have their doses reduced, Allergan and Ironwood claimed that patients experienced diarrhea of 16% in these trials. The Linzess drug label can be seen here, along with a graphic displaying the 27% of patients who had their dosing reduced.
NOTE: When looking at the Trulance and Linzess labels, don't get confused with "adverse reactions leading to discontinuation". This is a totally different metric and is unrelated to "adverse reactions leading to dose reductions", which is only on the Linzess label.
Also, to my likely critics, notice that the sample size in trial 5, the 72mcg dose trial, is nearly the same size as the original trials that were run. Therefore, the argument that the last Linzess trial was producing worse diarrhea because it was a smaller sample size carries little weight. The drug is producing worse diarrhea because patients were denied the ability to have their treatment interrupted.
Allergan's results from the Linzess 72mcg dose trial are a more accurate depiction of the drug's ability to produce significant diarrhea. Synergy's Trulance no longer has a 5% diarrhea vs. 16% diarrhea advantage against Linzess. It is more like 5% vs. 22%, which should further distinguish Trulance as the best in class treatment in this category.
Allergan's Linzess franchise should start feeling the heat next year from Trulance. Synergy also has a 250 person salesforce compared to 1,400 with Allergan. A potential buyout of Synergy from another big pharma company will put severe pressure on Allergan's plans against Trulance, as they're essentially increasing their salesforce substantially overnight.
People should stay away from romaine lettuce until health officials get to the bottom of an outbreak of E. coli infections....Stay alway from romaine lettuce?!?! Stay away from Linzess an E coli derivative! E coli bad. Linzess=e coli.
Not hard to imagine what a false claims smack down would do to a company hanging by a thread like Synergy?
It looks like patients repeatedly treated with Linaclotide have a risk of seeking alternative drug if treatment-related Anti Drug (Linaclotide) Antibody (ADA) is produced resulting in neutralizing the drug.and render it inactive. This is behind this clinical trial as linked below. But SYGP's Trulance is happy to help out at that stage. On a second thought, why physicians shouldn't put patients on Trulance at the first place. Note that Linaclotide is a peptide mimic of endogenous guanylin and uroguanylin, meaning a foreign peptide that can be to recognized by immune system as foreign material that provoke immune rejection where the ADA concern is about. However, Plecanatide (brand name Trulance), Is nearly structurally identical to human uroguanylin. This may explain why Trulance has less side effects and has no concern for ADA issues.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02590432
Synergy Sales Team, 2018 is going to be our year! Formulary wins are increasing and we'll have a nice bump in sales with IBS-C around the corner. We can only focus on whats within our control, all the static around buy outs, cash burns, sales force cuts, poor management, etc is just noise.
We all have a choice, stay focused on growing sales of Trulance within our territories or focus on things we have no control over and will only bring us down by listening to the noise. At the end of the day, we all have jobs that pay us far more than the average american, we sell a drug in its infancy with huge potential and we can only go up in our growth trends. We've had our fair share of growing pains but the hardest year is over and I'm anticipating a solid year for us all. I'm making the choice to cut out the noise I can't control and max out my opportunity to grow sales and make money. We all hear the talk about Trulance being a "me too drug", "no coverage", "we can't compete with big pharma's salesforce" but we've done more in one year with no coverage, a small sales force and we've differentiated Trulance from the competition as a unique drug (not a me too) and we are just getting started. We are going to crush 2018 and the growing pains of 2017 will soon be behind us. Make this a great year!! Hold tight for good news on the horizon and stay positive as we push forward.
We all have a choice, stay focused on growing sales of Trulance within our territories or focus on things we have no control over and will only bring us down by listening to the noise. At the end of the day, we all have jobs that pay us far more than the average american, we sell a drug in its infancy with huge potential and we can only go up in our growth trends. We've had our fair share of growing pains but the hardest year is over and I'm anticipating a solid year for us all. I'm making the choice to cut out the noise I can't control and max out my opportunity to grow sales and make money. We all hear the talk about Trulance being a "me too drug", "no coverage", "we can't compete with big pharma's salesforce" but we've done more in one year with no coverage, a small sales force and we've differentiated Trulance from the competition as a unique drug (not a me too) and we are just getting started. We are going to crush 2018 and the growing pains of 2017 will soon be behind us. Make this a great year!! Hold tight for good news on the horizon and stay positive as we push forward.
Great post...but I'm more concerned with my resume selling a me-too drug for IBS-C. No science that really matters, not really making a difference in patients lives (no matter how much we say it is...its not cancer or UC), and with a company that doesn't have a very bright future. And even if we do survive we are just selling an IBS drug....I left Salix selling (from a resume standpoint) a drug in an orphan disease state...to this. Everyday I regret that decision but don't want to look like a job hopper.
My recommendation is to get out now. You followed a manager here, as I did, is my bet. You were also, i am sure, told home much you would make on the stock or maybe be the next RBD. All things that aren’t going to happen. Start interviewing, simply quote a handful of the stock blog headlines as to the poor mismanagement of this company and you have effectively explained where a strategic decision turned south. And quality company won’t give it a second thought. Good luck. I am right there with you. Second interview later this week.
Where have I heard this speech? Oh, yeah. I have heard it from every manager who ever w
Worked in this industry. Whatever you do, remember to never think for yourself. “Everything is looking great. Keep going out there. Make it happen.” Yaddayaddayadda.
The company lied to its investors on a call and then when out and sold shares at a discount. I've lost my trust in this company and it's time to move on. Lay us all off so I can get my 2 months severance and fly this chicken coop.