The word is that the JNJ folks have been testing different drug compounds for several years and eliminated all but one. I'm sure they tested paclitaxel and actiomycin-D as well (thank goodness). I believe if you do your due dilligence and locate the ideal drug and polymer, you cut the deal to get access to the products. If you don't (JNJ) some other company will. Its my understanding that a drug takes over 5 plus years just to bring to market. Rapymune or sirolimus was already available. Also, I believe the ALZA acquisition might provide some good drug-release technology for future products. However, I believe the pharma folks at JNJ recognized sirolimus as a good platform for the DES. Remember, this is the just the first generation product. I'm sure there will be many other drugs coming down the pipe. Thanks.
idiot, my comments were specific to that which pertains to Cypher!! JNJ was not the developing entity for the drug, and/or the coating technology used for this DES. Hence, the reference was aimed at the drug side of the house. Besides, if they were such a pharm powerhouse as you say then why are they relying on a 3rd party to provide the drug and the coating technology?? I'd think based upon your statements, JNJ would have in-house resources to create such a blockbuster product!!!!!!
I would like to correct you that J&J is a real pharm. Between it's Ortho, McNeil, and Janssen divisions, it has been a leading pharmaceutical for over 60 years. It is currently the 4th largest pharma company in the world, just counting pharma sales.
While it has acquired many smaller biologic companies lately, J&J's history in pharma is one of in-house development. J&J invented such products as the oral contraceptive, tylenol, fentanyl, haldol, sufentanil, risperdal to name a few. It is a leader in both woman's health, CNS, and pain.
I believe this qualifies as "real" pharma.
We all know Cordis is working with SRDX on the coating. What does your "research" show about BSX's coating - who are they working with? What's their polymer? In what ways, if any, is it superior to SRDX/JNJ's technology?
My guess is you can't answer those questions.
i think cardiologists already are figuring it out. I was talking to one at the medical center where I work, and he matter of factly said " I don't think the taxol is going to work." He seemed pretty impressed with the CYPHER data. He works out of Einstein in NYC. I see that "West Coast Doc" seems to have the same opinion.
Some quick thoughts on this string. WHile J&J is not a pure pharm it is the 5th largest pharm co. in the world based on pharm only sales. My theory is Sirolimus (cytostatic) will have better long term outcomes than Taxol (cytotoxic)since cytotoxic may induce a rebound scarring reaction that will lead to some restenosis. Anyway this is just speculation by a non-expert.
OH WOW Dealmaker, I bet your research is better than every knowledgeable thought leader in the country who happen by the way to think Sirolimus is the superior pharmaceutical. Just what is better? Actomycin D? TAXOL? There are just as many trials that have failed with TAXOL than succeeded. No long term data. No real world patients and you have already come to the brilliant conclusion that there is something better. Even you should be a little suspicious of BSC and the shameless way they are hiding/delaying their data. BSC has done everything right? How about Medinol? How about Quantum? How about Nir on Sox? How about the very first stent they did make on their own, the "Express", falling off at an alarming rate. You really are an idiot. Go add insight to the company you seem to think is better. They need you...
ergo, just as an fyi.....if JNJ hadn't come up with some way to thwart off the patient infringement lawsuits coming down the pipe they probably wouldn't have been able to secure the pharma for the DES. If you didn't recognize that when JNJ formally admitted to the market who it's partner was in the DES coating; shortly thereafter, JNJ also signed over key patient rights to one of it's core drugs so that it's competition could pursue the market without litigation.. As for the coating technology itself, I will tell you from research.....Cordis doesn't have the "Best in Class" coating technology on the market and it's definitely far from "Best in Class". Thast's why the FDA hasn't given early and will not give early approval.
Most drug uptake is assimilated into the vascular wall where it is incontact with the metal stent. There is a limited amount of drug trasferred to the adjacent tissue on the proximal (up stream) end of the stent this way. Since the drug elutes on both sides of the stent, there is more benefit where the eluted drug is washed downstream and more drug is avialable for uptake into the vessel wall. It is also speculated that there may be more vascular injury on the vessel wall on the upstream side resulting from more manipulation and when positioning the catheter. This additional injury then results in less impressive results. This is speculation with no data to conclusively establish that it is an injury response. Regardless, the results on both distal and proximal adjacent to the stent are superior or has less restenosis than a bare stent. Technique (using longer stents and being more careful to limit injury on the pre and post dilitation) may reduce restenosis in the near "0" range. This was in fact the case with the RAVEL trial where longer stents (longer on average for the stented area) were used.
dealmaker - just for YOUR information, combining a drug, coating, and stent requires significant expertise - and Cordis is leveraging its relationship with JNJ's pharma side. Licensing a coating technology and a superior anti-restenosis drug (sirolimus) was a brilliant move on Cordis's part - getting them to market faster and with a better product than the competition. We know bsx is licensing taxol -- how have they developed their coating? Who do they have to help with pharma? I predict bsx and their longs will be in for a rude surprise when they file their application!