Given the huge investment needed to get a drug onto the market and the sophisticated,
expensive launch
campaign that follows, it is unlikely that companies would take the naming
of their product lightly. Stories abound regarding products in other industries
where names have been a
disaster, particularly when a product name has been adapted for use in a foreign
market. Apart from avoiding embarrassment, given the growing number of
medicines on the international market, as well as others emerging from product pipelines, it must be
difficult to find something new that does not sound like something else. There
is always the safety angle to be aware of since prescribing errors due to name
similarities are a big healthcare problem. In addition, the naming process
needs to follow certain guidelines
outlined by regulators.
As every company closely guards the specifics of their
methodology for naming new drugs, it is hard to determine what the common
points might be between different company approaches. Nevertheless, some
insights and clues
have appeared in the industry media. For example, it is clear that companies
start thinking about their brand name very early
on in development. Clearly a product name should be one that is easy
to remember, hopefully straightforward
to pronounce and one that subtly gives healthcare
professionals a favourable impression (so that they think of it rather than
a generic name). Marketers seem to love names that generate emotion
and a whole host of branding agencies
have done very well in this line of business.
A number of the names
sound a bit space age, using letter such as X,
Z, N, Q or K. It has been suggested that these hard sounds convey the
impression of cutting edge science. Not surprisingly, if we consider things
from a marketing perspective, softer sounds seem to be in use for women’s
products – using letters such as S,
M, V, L or R.
It is easy to be critical that so much time and money is
spent on developing a drug name and the touchy
feely marketing aspects probably make most people cringe (…you can have a
go yourself by trying the online Drug-O-Matic
Name Generator). No one wants to feel that they are influenced in any other
way to think of a medicine than by the hard scientific and medical data
available. Then again, for the Top
25 Best-Selling Drugs how quickly can you name and accurately spell their generic names?
Latest sales & marketing jobs
We are hearing a lot about transparency
these days. Regardless of the sector you work in, everyone
is very keen to show that they have nothing to hide. In the world of pharma a
big talking point is transparency regarding clinical trial data, driven by longstanding
concerns over the selective
publication of trial results. The worry is that
unless all data for clinical trials are available then no one really knows
on what basis clinical decisions about new drugs and other healthcare
interventions are made. Several campaigners
have suggested that selective reporting of trial results has already had a
negative impact on patient health outcomes and that this situation is no longer
tolerable. Now with media
attention focused on specific examples of drug companies’ perceived reluctance
to publish data on all their drug trials, coupled with the persuasive messages
from the Alltrials campaign, things are
set to change.
There has been a tendency in the past by various industry
parties to view clinical trial data as “their”
data and put forward technical justifications as to why only certain
clinical data is published. However, campaigners for transparency have pretty
well scuppered this position by pointing out that since patients are involved,
they did not get involved in trials just for the results to stay hidden in some
vault. This ethical and moral argument is one that resonates far better with
the public than the laboured approach that many industry
representatives use. Complicating the industry position further is the fact
that some major
companies are now publicly backing the Alltrials campaign.
However, what is really set to cause a big stir is the
European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) impending policy
on the proactive publication of clinical trial data. European regulators have
not always been the best of friends with campaigners for data transparency,
but the EMA’s current position will be hugely influential on how things develop
from here. At the moment, a final
round of consultations with key stakeholders is taking place and a final
version is likely to be endorsed by the Agency’s management in June. When this
policy is released, the impact is likely to be global. Already, there are signs
that other
regulatory agencies are reviewing their approaches to transparency. Greater
data transparency is inevitable, but the measures
to ensure that data are released and used in the right way so that patients
actually benefit from the more open environment are still to be defined.
OK admit it,you don’t know what a MOOC is and what it stands for, but you keep hearing everyone talk about it. It sounds nerdy though, right? Well, don’t be alarmed as it isn’t a weird alien from Star Trek (…apparently there was a profitable pharma industry in Star Trek. In fact a MOOC is a concept that’s
being debated as a way to revolutionize education.
MOOC stands for Massive Open Online Course and as the full name states is designed to make education accessible wherever you are. Supporters of MOOC have even optimitstically claimed that they will make education “borderless, gender-blind, race-blind,
class-blind, and bank account–blind
If you cut
through the jargon, a MOOC basically uses modern technology to deliver an
educational course online for free. Many MOOCs appear to be slimmed down
versions of modules that might feature in a degree. Learning takes place in a kind of distance
learning format, often with video-based lectures and via a website for group
course work and assessments (including quizzes and exams). However, there seem
to be no entry requirements, no fixed structure for the educational content, no
set length and no universally accepted standard certification. Also there is no
sign that MOOCs will replace mainstream qualifications (i.e. what you need for
a job!).
If you have
no initial set ideas in choosing a MOOC, then you can become a bit overwhelmed
by what’s on offer. It’s a bit like your “eyes being bigger than your stomach” when
you are faced with the opportunity for a fantastic meal. The fact is that you
can study anything – yes truly anything! The list of MOOCs on offer is truly
mindboggling and is growing by the day – ranging from areas such as quantum physics, ancient history and corporate finance – through to more unusual subjects
such as card magic tricks and knitting
socks.
If you are in
the pharmaceutical industry, all you have to do is sift through this giant list
and you will find courses that are ideal for areas you want to know more about.
So yes, it is possible for you to ditch the opportunity to pursue underwater basket weaving and instead learn about more career-related
areas such as drug discovery and development, clinical trials, medical statistics, healthcare ethics, health technology assessment (HTA) or current global health challenges. Some MOOCs could even help you
figure out where you want to work in the pharma
sector.
If you are
interested in educating yourself in new areas then MOOCs can be an excellent
way to achieve this at no cost. You may not be able to convince your employer
to accept the self assessment certificate you gain from a MOOC as a substitute
for a formal qualification but they might be impressed by your new-found
knowledge on a subject. However, be warned that hard work is needed if you want
to get the best from a MOOC and that if you don’t motivate yourself no one else
will. Although thousands of people often sign up to popular MOOCs, the
completion rate for courses remains shockingly awful – often 90% do not finish.
