Brilinta

Discussion in 'AstraZeneca' started by Anonymous, Apr 9, 2012 at 7:25 PM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest


    Sorry to inform you, but I DO know something about selling Crestor. Crestor took me to the COE 2 years. Nuf said... go back to your make-believe hospital contract....
     

  2. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Grow up, you make all us AZ Reps look like asses on here.
     
  3. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    BUT YOU ARE.
     
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    The drug is dosed BID, this the real problem, plus no significant benefit versus placid on STAMINA or diabetics. This is a dog, no significant wins at hospitals across there country.
     
  5. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Damn autospell, STEMI
     
  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Damn autospell, STEMI and Placid oops
     
  7. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Guess I should not have quoted over smartphone. The problem is the BID dosing. There is no benefit in STEMI or in diabetics. We are also more expensive. Why would a MD want to use this dog???
     
  8. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Where is it shown that there is no benefit in STEMI or diabetics?
     
  9. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    To the 'no benefit in STEMI and diabetes' idiot. . . Go away TROLL! You obviously cannot read a PI.
     
  10. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    When our product has a P-Value of 0.07 vs. Plavix. Any idiot knows that to be signficant you must be < 0.05 The same hold true diabetics.
     
  11. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Really, maybe you should read our study and not some abstract. Okay, here it is. When ticagrelor was compared to patients with or without diabetes, the data was better for those patients with diabetes. But, this is not what the point is. This data from page 3012 in our study only points to a comparison with ticagrelor with patients who either had or did not have diabetes. When we compared brilinta to clopidogrel with diabetes (page 3013), no significance was achieved. P-Values were much greater than than 0.05 and confidence intervals exceed 1.00, meaning no statistical significance over plavix. Furthermore, the authors concluded that the trial did not reach statistical significance (page 3014) in the primary and secondary endpoints. I got ripped on this by an IC. The conclusions they come up with in this study as well as our STEMI study is ridiculous.
     
  12. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    numerically greater but not significant Does this phrase sound familiar?
     
  13. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    .07 may not be a significance but the trial was not powered for equivalance, only superiority. So, for all we know, Brilinta IS equal to Plavix just not significantly better than for that population. It is tough for an IC to say there was no overall mortality benefit when clearly there was. There are a number of thought leaders that think Plavix is crap. So, where does that leave us? Effient is a bleeding nightmare. Just ask any CTS. Patients that need urgent surgery have died on that drug. Plavix is so damn variable, that it cannot be counted on to keep patients from coming back all clotted off six months later - look at their own label. I think this guy/IC was just giving you a hard time. You can split the data a million different ways. Don't get so hung up on "your own" data. There are a lot of other trials out there. This guy wanted to hear you tell him something he DID NOT know.
     
  14. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22179530?dopt=Abstract
    LOL - it's ST-seg resolution at discharge dippy. I really do not know of any drug that has ever made this comparison, whether this comparison is meaningful between the two drugs or in the class. Obviously, those patients that can leave with it resolved, have better outcomes. But this class of drugs may not have anything to do with resolution. If this is what your IC was discussing with you, brush up on your EP knowledge and what type of patients/drugs prevent or prolong this profile. That guy WAS giving you a hard time.
     
  15. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    As an IC told me clearly, these are outcomes driven products. If you are not significantly better with statistical significance, you are not better. Sure we could go back and forth over this, but, the BID dosing does not help with compliance and this is the real issue. I hate this product...
     
  16. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Really, for a mortality beneift and less stent thrombsis? - So the IC's work will last longer, less risk of MI or death and no worries about variability, you would not take one pill in the morning and one pill at night? I bet this patient group has lots of drugs they take one in the morning and one at night. So they remember to take it at night with their beta blocker or insulin/statin/Niaspan and in the morning with their ACE. Plavix is less than 25 effective in anyone with a CrCL of less than 60. That means an antiplatet effect on ADP that could be as low as ZERO effect to a max of only 30 percent inhibition. This is more than half of the stenting population. That is not effective if the pt has multiple stents, is diabetic, smokes, has hypertension, is obese or has high cholesterol. Something stronger is needed and the pt need only take a baby asprin then. Do you people actually know how to sell to an IC?
     
  17. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    So, does Brilinta have a mortality benefit above Plavix or not? That is all that matters.
     
  18. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Let me start, not in North America, not in STEMI, not in diabetics, if you stent within 10-12 hours of onset of chest pain -NO mortality benefit in STEMI or NSTEMI, depending on the combo of STEMI or diabetes or both, no benefit whatsoever regardless of age, sex, region, type of stent used, use of IIb/IIa's, should I keep going on???? Really, this drug is a dog and top that with BID dosing, crap! What was the compliance rate for Brilinta in our study for North America - 62%, Really? In a study no less and you wonder why the drug is sucking rocks.
     
  19. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Well, North America was the high ASA dose which resulted in worse outcomes, as well as in other areas where ASA was dosed high. Are you talking about North America diabetes and STEMI data or overall. Overall, the data are good with a mortality benefit. North America was a problem because with a high ASA dose comes insignificant groin bleeding that can cause the medication(s) to be terminated. If this was an "intent to treat trial" which it was, you include even those patients that got the drug and then stopped, meaning the final outcome suffered. Someone bleeds at all and the antithrombotics get shut off. Later, that person is far more likely to have an event. Period. Again, you have a great product, YOU just do not know how to sell it nor do you believe in it. Time to step aside. Any product that is number ONE in Europe and tanking here, has a problem with their strategy and tactics. It is not the drug, believe me. Check out the rate of fatal CABG bleeding. . . I would prefer B to P anyday.