The WSJ Health Blog: Brown-Nosing CEO's?

The WSJ Health Blog is a great blog, no question about it. And it is written by two great healthcare reporters, Scott Hensley and Jacob Goldstein. And sometimes someone else chips in.

Today WSJ health reporter Ron Winslow did just that.

In a piece, called Trust: The Secret Sauce for CEO’s Cooking, which I can't help but feel was meant to improve the Wall Street Journal's access to Daniel Vasella, Novartis CEO, Winslow covered Kathy Bloomgarden.

Kathy Bloomgarden, who is the CEO of the "big PR firm Ruder-Finn," has written a book called Trust: The Secret Weapon of Effective Business Leaders, yada yada yada, and it was launched at the "Conde Nast building in New York’s Times Square."

I know, I know, this starts to sound like a celebrity gossip party, right?

And the WSj Health Blog reports breathlessly that Bloomgarten "is known most prominently at the Health Blog as uber-confidante of Novartis’ CEO Dan Vasella. We thought her observations about the executive suite might have special relevance for Health Blog readers."

Don't think so.

I think the WSJ Health blog is kissing butt. And so does the very senior journalist who tipped me off to this story.

If you don't believe me, here's how the post describes the food: "bites of cilantro-grilled shrimp, onion tarts and chicken satay."

And it ends, breathlessly:

" . . . the Health Blog combed Bloomgarden’s book for insights.

Her prescription for CEOs includes the following advice:

• Build a leadership “brand” based on core personal values and communicate it throughout the company.


• Listen twice as much as you speak to learn different perspectives from employees, customers and critics.


• Be open, honest and transparent.


• Commit to strong corporate governance policies.


• Embrace responsibility to the communities where you are based and to constituencies in need.

I guess, based on Big Pharma's ongoing fiasco in the PR area, you can only come to one of two conclusions:

Either the work the PR consultants do for Big Pharma stinks.

Or, the highly paid PR professionals can't convince their clients to take some good advoice.

Hardly the perfect background to write a book.

As for the WSJ Health Blog, this is a great blog. Especially when Scott Hensley and Jacob Goldstein write. And you just have to forgive the corporate parent, whom I also love, if they have to do some butt-kissing, to get access to those all-important CEO's.

Zelnorm is dead.

Novartis pulled bowel drug Zelnorm from U.S. shelves on Friday at the request of the FDA, because clinical trial data indicated a link to heart attacks and strokes.

In fact, in a large clinical trial with 18,000 patients, researchers found 13 times as many patients treated with Zelnorm experienced heart attack, stroke, or angina compared to placebo-treated patients.

Noooooooot good.

The actual number of patients affected, however, were small; only 13 patients, so who knows how bad this is.

The drug had been approved in July, 2002 for women who had constipation caused by irritable bowel syndrome. In August, 2004, men and women under age 65 could also use the drug.

This was a drug in search of patients, and Novartis had a hard time proving it was effective for anything. But they did funny television commercials of women with stuff written on their tummies.

In Europe, Novartis was never able to convince the regulators to approve the drug. Mean-spirited individuals might claim that was because European regulatory authorities are not paid off like the FDA. Of course, that is a simplification, which I don't believe is true.

FDA officials said Zelnorm might be able to return on a limited basis but only if a group of patients could be identified for whom the benefits outweighed the risks.

Yeah, that'll be the day.

Zelnorm was Novartis' 12th-biggest selling drug in 2006, with global turnover growing 30 percent to $561 million, of which $488 million was generated in the United States.

About 500,000 U.S. patients are taking Zelnorm, Novartis spokeswoman Anna Frable said.

Lawsuits next, anyone?

Drug company mergers

This from Pharmalot:

In an attempt to take the guesswork out of such speculation, Catherine Arnold of Credit Suisse examines a host of issues confronting the 13 major drugmakers, and in an investor note this morning, decides that Wyeth and Bristol-Myers Squibb rate as the highest 'natural' targets, while Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline are the most likely acquirers.

The combinations deemed 'very' possible:

Pfizer + Wyeth;
Novartis + Wyeth;
Glaxo + Bristol;
Glaxo + Astra;
Sanofi + Bristol.

My comment: Verrrry interesting. Although, I have to admit, Wyeth has been to the altar a number of times and managed to get out of tying the not.

What wasn't mentioned above is that there are really only two drug companies that would make a good investment for the next ten years, based on pipeline and lack of patent expiration. And that is Wyeth and Novartis.

Perhaps another reason for the two to join in holy matrimony?


Best analysis, however, goes to WSJ, here is a graphic representation of the future of the drug industry, which I humbly think is not too far-fetched: