lly management is excellent. look at this link. keep in mind pfe`s viagra pushed its value at extreme`s. target=new >http://quicken.excite.com/investments/charts/?symbol=LLY&period=5YEAR&othersymbols=mrk+pfe+wla+ahp+bmy+&mavg=NONE&ImgSiz=455x250
see. therefore, do not blame management. longterm lly will win.
The patient population for Evista will be/is the 60% of postmenopausal women who currently take nothing. ERT has been out for 50 years and is cheap. If it was the answer, why are all these women on nothing. Additionally, this is where the lion's share of new Rxes are coming from--and by the way, they are growing.
I concur with your assessment of the "Breast Cancerophobia" that makes initiation and compliance of ERT/HRT difficult at
best. We do see alot of Breast CA in the 40-50 age group, and this possibly sensitizes women in this age group to be gunshy of
estrogen. However, 10 years from now, these same women will have many more friends stricken with cardiovascular disease. I still can't
see raloxifene being a replacement for these women, however, I do see your point if they are "un-teachable" or un-councilable"
In these cases, don't you think the other estrogen alternatives would be a more effective, and more formulary friendly way to go, coupled with a healthy dose of exercise and low-fat diets?
Thanks for your opinions!
This stock sucks. The y2k stocks are starting to take off. Have recently pulled back creating a good opportunity to buy. These stocks will be hard to get soon. Funds are starting to pick these up. TAVA has done well. TPII is next to go. Cheap @ $1 and some change.
Good Luck All
I am seeing an increasing # of patients who are suspicious that ERT causes breast cancer even though the data shows very
little difference the 1st 20 years of therapy. A short term study showed a 77% decrease in incidence of Breast Ca with evista
compared with placebo after 18 months of treatment. Although evista is not as good as conventional HRT as far as lipids and
osteoporosis prevention, there is evidence of benefit in both areas. Patients who still have their uterus usually bleed on conventional
HRT - patients hate this after a while. Patients who have "fibroids" in the uterus often grow on conventional HRT requiring
surgery. This does not happen with Evista. I see a number of patients who, even on the lowest dosage of estrogen, have breast
soreness who would be candidates for Evista.
It's not a perfect drug as it does not prevent the pelvic relaxation which occurs after the menopause without ERT and it does not prevent hot flashes. Estrogen currently is contra-indicated in patients who have had breast cancer and metastatic uterine cancer. I think the largest % of users will be the increasing # of women who have breast cancerophobia. I see many of them and also see a lot of breast cancer.
My question to you is have you heard the story yourself? I'm sure your Lilly rep has tried to tell you, the question is did
you give him/her the chance. The story is complete and full of real data. The issue behind this promotion is that it requires a
paradigm shift on the part of that front line MD you're talking about. Few are in the prevention business. A patient comes in,
complains of a symptom, and the MD tries to fix the problem. That is not what Evista is about. The proof that MDs work this way is
clearly seen by the number of postmenopausal women in this country who are on no therapy whatsoever--at least 70%. This is hard data
and easy to get. Take the census number of postmenopausal women and subtract the number of HRT/ERT Rxes. So, I urge you and your
collegues to talk to the Lilly rep that calls on you. They have the data and it is compelling. And remember, prevention require a
different approach and thought process when that 55 year old, healthy female with few or no hot flashes comes in to see you for a
runny nose. Think about it.
comments about one doctor using Evista.
If you're going to invest in the stock you might as well realize the perscribing results to date have been very
disappointing. Lilly went out to us doctors with full page ads that said nothing else but Evista in color and not mentioning a word about
what it was for, what it did, what to perscribe it for, etc. Since the real engine for selling this is not the specialist who
uses it but the everyday doctor out on the firing line whose specialty may not be gyn or endocrinology, it was a bad initial
Evista is going to be expensive enough so that its not going to be covered by HMO's, etc. because it might have anti-breast cancer effects. It's going to make it on whether it proves to be a vailid drug for its indication of significant or premature osteoporosis.
You should know this rather than one "I perscribed it for 3 patients". And maybe some of the lay press releases sound good, but the promotional campaign to date has been a disaster.