Pharma's Market
SPECIAL REPORT
MOST SHARED
- The 'Real' Jobless Rate: 17.5% Of Workers Are Unemployed
- Why Amazon Rules Retail
- Paul: Audit the Fed
- HP Comes in As Expected; Is It Time to Buy?
- JAL Slides to Record Low on Bankruptcy Jitters
- Prepare For Large Decline In Stocks, Next Year?
- The Social Media Gaming Threat
- Holiday Travel Outlook
- Wave of Debt Payments Facing US Government
- Hewlett-Packard Profit Rises, Matches Guidance
- Can Murdoch Help Bing Challenge Google and Shift the Content Equation?
- HP's Mark Hurd
- HP Comes in As Expected; Is It Time to Buy?
- 9 Stocks That Play Rising Water Costs: Strategists
- Weis' Deal Likely Won't Change Big Money Contracts
- Gold Prices Can Double in 3 Years: Portfolio Manager
- Nov. 23: Unusual Volume Leaders
- Help Wanted—Please Run $4 Billion University
- Apple Comes to AT&T's Rescue
- Obama says Boosting US Jobs is Top Priority
- More Consumers Giving 'Black Friday' the Cold Shoulder
- Prepare For Large Decline In Stocks, Next Year?
- Hewlett-Packard Earnings Rise, Match Guidance
- HP Comes in As Expected; Is It Time to Buy?
- Cramer: What Monday’s Housing Number Really Means
- Why the Dollar Will Likely Stay Weak for Some Time
- Bear, Lehman Execs Weren't Wiped Out by Crisis: Study
- How Real Estate Investors Skew Housing's Reality
PHARMA'S MARKET VIDEO

Cholesterol Drug Battle: Niaspan vs. Zetia
16 Nov 2009
Cardiologist Grades Cholesterol Drug Study
16 Nov 2009
Merck's Cholesterol Drugs Under Pressure
16 Nov 2009
Cholesterol Drug Battle: Merck vs. Abbott Labs
16 Nov 2009
Cholesterol Drug Battle
16 Nov 2009
Novo Nordisk CEO on Diabetes Epidemic
13 Nov 2009
RSS FEED
Reporter
![]() |
The stock had fallen about 10 percent late last week on rumors that reports were about to be published in a medical journal identifying a suspected higher risk of cancer with Lantus, the world's top-selling insulin.
Most analysts think the data are inconclusive, that a cause and effect has not been established, but that Lantus sales could, nonetheless, still suffer.
For those who might be unfamiliar with part of the the formal protocol surrounding the publication of studies in medical journals, here's what usually is supposed to happen on our end. Reporters receive a heads up and sign up to receive the embargoed studies. That gives them time to do research and interviews, so their stories can hit the wires, the web or the air as soon as the embargo lifts. If you happen to break an embargo, you lose the privilege. In this instance, the embargoed Lantus studies had not yet reached the news media, at least not directly from the medical journal itself. They definitely had not reached us.
That's because they weren't supposed to come out until a week from today. This morning I talked over the phone with Professor Edwin Gale, the editor of "Diabetologia" (don't make me pronounce it) or the "Journal of the European Diabetes Association," which published the studies, to try to find out how and why the data leaked a week-and-a-half early. He told me that the publication had the best of intentions. It didn't want medicine and the market to be blindsided like it had been by the controversial study of GlaxoSmithKline's [GSK
Loading...
()
] diabetes pill Avandia a couple of years ago, so it brought several European regulatory agencies into the loop awhile ago. And, in hindsight, Professor Gale thinks that might have been a mistake. He would not speculate on the record where the leak could have come from and he thinks it'd be impossible to find the source. But he did say, "We regretted that we informed the regulatory authorities as fully and as early as we had. We would inform them, but we would give them less of a lead time on it."
When SNY shares started tanking last Thursday, the journal regrouped. Professor Gale told me, "Suddenly stories were flying around that there were papers coming out and the stock exchange was going into freefall and we assumed that someone had leaked our data." So, it took the rare step of putting the studies on line way early. "Diabetologia" didn't even have a press release written yet. In fact, the original set of documents that were posted late last Friday still said "Author's Proof!" at the top of them. They've since been updated.
Professor Gale estimated that fewer than 30 people, to his knowledge, had seen the studies by the beginning of this month. But clearly by late last week, many others had seen or, at least, heard about them. "Since many people had seen our data we felt a panic was being created and if that was the case the most responsible thing to do was put out what we've got, so there were facts instead of rumors," Gale said. "We just shoved out what we had because we thought it was time."
In my blog last Friday, I said I'd be shocked if a medical journal moved up its release date. Oops. But I wondered whether Sanofi might push for early publication. Gale told me, "We were not influenced in any way by Sanofi."
Questions? Comments? and follow me on Twitter at mhuckman









