Marketing Tamiflu
Marketing Tamiflu
The name Tamiflu was the second choice, last minute name approved by Roche for their new antiviral medication in 1999. Also in the same year, just in time for the yearly influenza outbreak, oseltamivir was permitted as a prescription for use in Switzerland. One month later, they were approved for using tamiflu in the United States – their timing was right, or so it appeared. Only seven years had lapsed since development of the new antiviral influenza drug had begun, unusual since these procedures would easily take up to about fifteen years. Another drug company had also been busy producing their own antiviral about the same time and Relenza was released about three months prior to the tamiflu release.
The beginning of October in 1999 found tamiflu sitting on the shelves, behind the counters of Swiss drug stores, a medicinal marvel if people only new it existed! Not unlike other new medications, tamiflu was required to be sold by prescription only for a five year period and this meant that Swiss law forbid any advertising for prescribed meds. Roche was faced with a marketing dilemma since if people were not aware of tamiflu as an available medicine for influenza, they would not be inclined to visit their doctor for the flu, rather suffer through it as was the standard advice. For decades, people were told to get plenty of bed rest, drink fluids and take something for the chills and fever like aspirin. Now the trick was to convince people to see their doctor for a treatment for flu.
Roche marketing decided to cover Switzerland with cards describing disparities between colds and influenza, complete with a phone number for questions and a Website for online answers. Posters were distributed publicizing the web address and calling into queston people’s knowledge of influenza and where to get answers. Since the name tamiflu was in the website address it was determined, this was outside the boundaries of the law and Roche was prohibited from having the name tamiflu form part of their website URL in any of its advertising.
Another quandary was how they could alert physicians and pharmacists to their drug tamiflu. Roche marketing decided to get proactive and began an excursion for the expressed purpose of informing anyone who would listen about their drug tamiflu. They arranged for a press conference to take place in the U.K. where experts would speak on the harm presented by the influenza virus, how it harmed the economy and how tamiflu worked to prevent the flu virus.
Feedback was varied on how the tamiflu worked and one journalist wrote about it while he was suffering from a bout of the flu saying he could actually feel the medication working to destroy the flu virus in him. Some media stated that oseltamivir would be appropriate for the more susceptible groups in society such as the aged or those suffering with HIV contagion, basically saying it would have benefits if it were available should there ever be a pandemic. Another outlet said that as an antiviral medication it held a particularly modest significance not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Some medical authorities said that because of the available access to the medicine, it may have a bearing on whether people actually tried the drug and the price of tamiflu at about 20 Swiss francs, the public may not be convinced of the drugs value relative to its cost. This given the fact that a total of three out of ten people were misdiagnosed with influenza and that the drug would only be a waste on these people.
Despite the fact of its origin, its surprising capacity to thwart the spread of the influenza virus, and its diverse and pricey manufacturing process, oseltamivir was being rated by physicians as well as patients on the merit of its price to advantage quotient. Medical insurance companies did not compensate patients for their charges for antivirals. The thought of saving a day of suffering with the flu given the course of an influenza bug seemed of little value to some. The value claimed Roche personnel was in how much that particular day meant to the patient. The question was how much value did people place on being symptom free less of that time they had the flu.
There were a number of factors related to how quickly tamiflu would be accepted by the population starting with the general population adjusting the way they think about influenza and antivirals. Other factors such as the severity of future influenza outbreaks, how quickly influenza could be diagnosed, what were the odds of another pandemic breaking out, and what other antiviral medications would be released to market? All pertinent questions to determine the strength of tamiflu as a worldwide force in combating the influenza virus.
Glaxo Wellcome and Biota had announced they were about to produce new influenza medications as well as Johnson and Johnson. Roche would hold the top spot. The period from December 1999 to March 2000 – also the influenza season – sales of tamiflu totaled one hundred million Swiss francs. Other antivirals were not as successful; one of which needed to be inhaled and tamiflu sales amounted to seventy percent. It was obvious that people would rather swallow a tablet than inhale their medicine.
Other issues would plague the release of tamiflu. Two youths were injured in February and March of that year from falling off buildings subsequent to taking the medication produced by Roche Holding AG a Swiss company. Since the year 2004 fifteen more young persons were hurt or killed under similar circumstances, the majority in Japan, a major importer of oseltamivir via the Chugai Pharmaceutical Company, a Japanese drug maker that is fifty percent owned by Roche. The Japanese are known to be the most vigorous consumers of tamiflu globally. Health officials said as effective as tamiflu was against a possible pandemic of various flu viruses it could also trigger certain psychiatric indications. The manufacturer of oseltamivir, Roche, certainly had its work cut out for them from the very beginning while marketing oseltamivir to the masses.