Home  »  Community News  »  Pfizer
Sandeep Singh Dhillon
Pfizer spends billions to develop new drugs. It’s not satisfied. So it’s launching a startup –
Pharma Extra, Pharma Notables

By DAMIAN GARDE @damiangarde SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

There’s a popular theory about the limitations of global pharma companies: For all their skyscrapers and strategy reviews and private jets, they’re simply too knotted up in bureaucracy to realize how many great drugs are gathering dust in their vaults.

Now, the biggest of Big Pharma is out to do something about that. Pfizer, home to nearly 100,000 employees, on Monday announced the launch of a six-person startup to develop new drugs.

This may seem odd in that Pfizer spends literally billions of dollars a year advancing treatments of its own. But the company’s executives say they simply don’t have the resources to advance all the promising compounds that catch their eye — and they believe an independent company with the scrappy ethos of a startup will be in a better position to take on that task.

“The problem is very simple: There’s too much good science and not enough resources to advance it,” said Dr. Lara Sullivan, a former Pfizer vice president who is now leading the startup.

“If you want to see grown men cry, stop a program for budget reasons, not based on science,” Sullivan said.

The new spinoff, SpringWorks Therapeutics, is getting started with $103 million from investors including Pfizer and Bain. It will focus at first on four Pfizer-invented therapies, for conditions including post-traumatic stress disorder and rare forms of cancer. All are already in clinical trials. The two most advanced therapies, targeting tumors found on connective tissue and nerves, will advance to the final stage of development in the coming year.

SpringWorks, which will be based in New York, also plans to scour the pipelines of other pharma companies for compounds that have been set aside for lack of resources, hoping to license some of them for further testing.

It’s a business idea that has been gaining steam of late.

Roivant Sciences, founded by an ex-hedge fund manager in 2014, has built a cottage industry on the same principle, licensing unwanted therapies from the likes of GlaxoSmithKline and Takeda and then launching small startups to test them.

BridgeBio Pharma, established in 2015, takes a similar approach, searching academia and pharma alike for early-stage projects in the field of inherited disease. “We have what we call a better-owner model,” CEO Neil Kumar said. “We try to advance things as far as possible until we’re clearly not the best owner for the asset.”

The concept of scavenging for waylaid gems is considered so promising that Roivant has raised more than $1 billion to widen its search. Its 32-year-old founder, Vivek Ramaswamy, landed on the cover of Forbes, and two Roivant spinoffs pulled off a pair of biotech’s largest-ever Wall Street debuts.

Neither Roivant nor BridgeBio, however, has yet brought a drug to market.

And they’re dogged by the same questions that will follow SpringWorks: If these discarded compounds are so promising, why were they discarded in the first place? And how can a startup push them along better than a multinational heavyweight?

“What I’d say is that from the ground up we’re different,” said Saqib Islam, SpringWorks’ chief financial officer and chief business officer.

The company doesn’t intend to push for quick-turnaround returns on investment, he said. And it plans to work alongside the companies that originally invented or discovered each compound — such as Pfizer — to take advantage of in-house expertise.

“We think that’s the distinction that will draw some attention from those looking to partner their assets going forward,” Islam said.

Pfizer’s decision to wade into the space follows years of navel-gazing at major pharma companies, which have long envied the agility and nothing-to-lose gusto of biotech startups.

Conscious of how the comforts of corporate largess can be counterproductive, companies including GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca in the past sought to create mini startups within their own walls. But though they tried to replicate the feverish immediacy of startup culture, that proved almost impossible when the employees knew they were operating above the multibillion-dollar safety net of a huge pharma company.

Pfizer’s move to create an independent company — deliberately safety net-free — suggests the biggest wheels of the drug industry have learned an important lesson, said Bernard Munos, a former R&D executive at Eli Lilly who now consults for pharma companies.

“I think the industry has realized that they have not really been true to their words in terms of embracing innovation,” Munos said. “So this is very encouraging, frankly, especially coming from Pfizer.”

Read the original post here

Sandeep Singh Dhillon
Faulty EpiPen allegedly linked to unanticipated patient deaths; FDA issued warning letter – MIMS Malaysia
Pharma News

Tanvi Ambulkar

An EpiPen, which involves administering an emergency injection of adrenaline in the event of life-threatening anaphylactic reactions, is typically used to restore blood pressure and volume. Recently, the makers of EpiPen have come under fire – in view of its failure to properly investigate the complaints that the device misfired during life-threatening emergencies; including several instances, whereby patients later died, according to a warning letter issued by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Manufacturers failed to conduct comprehensive investigation into complaints received

The FDA alleges that, “Our own data show that you received hundreds of complaints that your EpiPen products failed to operate during life-threatening emergencies, including some situations in which patients subsequently died.” Despite these deaths and more than a hundred complaints, no formal inquiry was initiated by the manufacturer. Inspections of the manufacturing process in a Missouri plantation by the FDA in February and March revealed that there were “significant violations” committed in manufacturing the device.

Several EpiPens were recalled by Meridian Medical Technologies, a Pfizer company, in March to prevent retailing defective devices to customers. A FDA spokesperson has issued a statement expressing that the agency “was not aware of defective EpiPens currently on the market.” The FDA had issued a warning letter to Meridian Medical Technologies elaborating on the drawbacks of the production process. The letter detailed that the company had “failed to thoroughly investigate multiple serious component and product failures for your EpiPen products, including failures associated with patient deaths and severe illness.”

Responding to complaints – here’s what the manufacturing company has to say…

Pfizer insists that the nature of these complaints is expected because the “product is frequently administered by non-medically trained individuals.” In spite of this, the number of complaints lodged by customers should have elicited some form of inquiry into the quality of the products sold. However, Pfizer furthers claims that there is “no information to indicate that there was any causal connection between these product complaints and any patient deaths.”

Pfizer has been responsible for shipping up to 30 million EpiPens since 2015. Kim Bencker, a spokesperson for the company, echoes the beliefs of the manufacturer by stating that Pfizer was “very confident in the safety and efficacy of EpiPen products being produced at the site.” Whilst it is difficult to establish a direct connection between these products and the deaths, several complaints had been lodged where the device had failed to activate in a crisis situation.

Despite several instances of the device failing to work, the complaints were deemed as insufficiently frequent to act upon. Previous objections expressed by the FDA were also condoned and several devices containing the “potentially defective component” continue to be shipped.

Expensive devices may lead to a fall in sales revenue

As tens of thousands of the products have been recalled by companies, such as Mylan, that uphold “quality and patient safety” – Pfizer would most likely be facing tremendous pressure during these challenging times in overcoming this sales slump. Increasing competition in the market for these devices would also be driving prices to lower rates in order to attract a greater number of customers. MIMS

Sandeep Singh Dhillon
Former Pfizer Scientist Is Resurrecting Projects To Solve The Multidrug Resistant Bacteria Problem – Forbes
Pharma Notables

In 2008, Pfizer decided to reduce its therapeutic area footprint and to halt R&D in a variety of areas, including infectious diseases. At the time, Dr. Michael Dunne was a vice-president at Pfizer responsible for its infectious diseases portfolio. After 16 years at Pfizer, Dr. Dunne needed to move on and became the Chief Medical Officer at Durata Therapeutics, where he was able to continue to work on his mission of developing new antibiotics.

Although he stopped working for Pfizer, Dr. Dunne didn’t forget about his former projects. One in particular captured his interest – dalbavancin, a long-acting semisynthetic lipoglycopeptide antibiotic useful as an intravenous treatment for acute skin infections caused by susceptible gram-positive bacteria. Dr. Dunne believed that dalbavancin had great potential and so Durata approached Pfizer to license the drug. Durata’s efforts were successful and Dr. Dunne was back shepherding the dalbavancin clinical program. Five years later, Durata was able to win FDA approval for this antibiotic. Shortly thereafter, Durata Therapeutics was acquired by Actavis (now Allergan) for $675 million. Dr. Dunne’s instincts concerning dalbavancin were on the money.

Despite this success, Dr. Dunne wasn’t done with Pfizer and his former anti-infective portfolio. He has joined Iterum Therapeutics as its Chief Scientific Officer and has again reached out to Pfizer, this time for a penem antibiotic, sulopenem. Here is what he has to say about his latest venture.

“Pfizer stood down from anti-infective drug development in 2008 and that included any of the ongoing work on sulopenem. Sulopenem is a penem antibiotic, similar in spectrum to ertapenem, including multidrug resistant gram negative bacteria. Its main attraction is the fact that, in addition to an intravenous preparation, it is orally available, which will allow for step-down therapy for hospitalized patients coming off their IV therapy, as well as treatment of outpatient infections due to resistant pathogens. Having worked on sulopenem while I was at Pfizer, I recognized its continued relevance to today’s problem of multidrug resistant infections. Pfizer quickly recognized it would be better to have someone continue the development efforts rather than have the drug just sit on the shelf. The license is fairly typical for these types of compounds but, unless Iterum chooses not to develop it further, there are no claw back rights.”

While this is an old compound, sulopenem has good patent protection. The IV product should garner ten years of regulatory exclusivity in the U.S. due to its status as a “Qualified Infectious Disease Product”. Given that the oral prodrug form of sulopenem is an NCE, patent protection for this version exists through 2028 with the possibility of Hatch-Waxman as well as pediatric use extensions.

But, is the commercial attractiveness of sulopenem limited given that the FDA wants to minimize the use of new antibiotics to slow down the inevitable rise of drug resistance? Dr. Dunne doesn’t think so.

“The commercial attractiveness of any new drug is directly related to the patient problem that it solves. Given the medical need it addresses, we believe there is a strong and attractive business rationale for sulopenem. We are fully aligned with the idea that new and potent antibacterial agents should target patients who need them most. The use of sulopenem for step down therapy is perfectly aligned with good stewardship principles that get patients out of the hospital to avoid the propagation of nosocomial infections. In the outpatient setting, specifically for uncomplicated urinary tract infections, we envision that most use will be for two groups of patients. The first is for those who live in regions where resistance to the standard agents now exceeds 15 – 20%, making them poor alternatives for empiric therapy. The second group is for those patients with infections documented to be due to multidrug resistant gram-negative bacteria.”

So, Dr. Dunne has gone back to the Pfizer well in order to bring patients much needed novel antibiotics. Hopefully, for all of our benefit, his successful track record will continue.

Sandeep Singh Dhillon
Pfizer : FDA Grants BAVENCIO Approval For Common Type Of Advanced Bladder Cancer
Pharma News
, , ,

( – EMD Serono, the biopharmaceutical business of Merck KGaA (MKGAY.PK), and Pfizer Inc. ( PFE ) said that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved BAVENCIO (avelumab) Injection for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) who have disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy, or who have disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy.

BAVENCIO was previously granted accelerated approval from the FDA for the treatment of adults and pediatric patients 12 years and older with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). These indications are approved under accelerated approval based on tumor response and duration of response. Continued approval for these indications may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

In December 2015, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and Pfizer announced the initiation of a Phase III multicenter, multinational, randomized, open-label, parallel-arm study (JAVELIN Bladder 100) of BAVENCIO plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone as a maintenance treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease did not progress after completion of first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy. This trial is currently enrolling patients.

Sandeep Singh Dhillon
Pfizer bets $14 bln it knows better than market – Reuters
Pharma Extra, Pharma News, Pharma Notables

Pfizer seems to know something others don’t about Medivation. It’s betting $14 billion on the biotech, a 120 percent premium to the undisturbed market value. It’s a good fit and Medivation’s cancer blockbuster is a rare gem. But a heated auction and back-of-the-envelope math hint that the buyer is overpaying.

Big drug companies are always on the lookout for new drugs to sell. Among the most appealing are cancer therapies with fat margins. The concentrated market means few salespeople are needed, and drugs with a proven benefit over rival treatments can command sky-high prices. Medivation’s Xtandi for prostate cancer costs well over $100,000 per year.

Worldwide sales of Xtandi were $595 million in the second quarter. Even this gem has flaws, however. Pfizer will have to share rights to the drug with Japanese company Astellas Pharma. Medivation currently receives half of U.S. profits and a royalty from overseas sales.

Despite these limitations, Pfizer is paying more than 11 times Medivation’s estimated sales for 2017. The market values Pfizer at 4.5 times its revenue. There are big caveats to this comparison, but at the very least it suggests that Pfizer expects sales to grow sharply in future years. Yet Xtandi’s U.S. sales are leveling off, with growth running at an 11 percent annual rate in the second quarter. Extending treatment with the drug and expanding into new cancers may boost growth again, but that remains to be proven.

Redemption might come from Medivation’s potential drug for breast and other cancers. The company’s management recently said the new category of cancer treatment concerned could produce sales of $30 billion a year, with its drug capturing a big chunk. That sounds like part of the company’s sales pitch, though. Medivation paid just $410 million for it a year ago, with a promise of up to another $160 million as approvals are achieved. Analysts are mostly projecting annual sales of around $300 million from this drug.

Pfizer may believe in a far more lucrative outcome. But it also had to outbid multiple savvy rivals including Astellas, Medivation’s natural partner, and Sanofi. The most probable explanation for the heady price is that Pfizer has once again paid more than it should have done.

By Robert Cyran

Sandeep Singh Dhillon
Pfizer Acquires Medivation for $14 Billion (PFE, MDVN) –
Pharma News
, ,

American pharmaceutical corporation, Pfizer Inc.(PFE) has confirmed it will be acquiring San Francisco-based biopharmaceutical company, Medivation Inc (MDVN) for $81.50 a share and a total enterprise value of $14 billion in an all-cash deal. The deal is projected to expand Pfizer’s portfolio with the addition of the leading prostate cancer drug produced by Medivation.

“The proposed acquisition of Medivation is expected to immediately accelerate revenue growth and drive overall earnings growth potential for Pfizer,” said Ian Read, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Pfizer. “The addition of Medivation will strengthen Pfizer’s Innovative Health business and accelerate its pathway to a leadership position in oncology, one of our key focus areas, which we believe will drive greater growth and scale of that business over the long-term. This transaction is another example of how we are effectively deploying our capital to generate attractive returns and create shareholder value.” According to the released statement, the deal is “expected to be immediately accretive to Pfizer’s Adjusted Diluted EPS upon closing, approximately $0.05 accretive in the first full year after close with additional accretion and growth anticipated thereafter.” (See also Who Is Driving Pfizer’s Management Team? )

The deal is worth a lot more than the $52.50 a share offer made by France’s Sanofi in April. Medivation shares closed at $67.16 on Friday, pegging its market value at $11.1 billion. The company produces prostate cancer drug, Xtandi, which has already been approved for sale in many countries and is forecasted to generate over $5.7 billion in annual sales by 2020. The firm is also in the process of developing a drug for breast cancer, Talazoparib, and another for called Pidilizumab for the treatment of lymphoma. The latter has the potential to be combined with IO therapies in Pfizer’s portfolio

Pfizer Motivation
Pfizer CEO, Ian Read said in May, that the company has been looking to acquire late-stage pharmaceutical assets as it already has exposure to early-stage drugs. The company’s oncology offerings include breast cancer drug, Ibrance, and other immune-oncology drugs. The $14 billion deal with Medivation will strengthen the CEO Read’s efforts to boost the company’s business. Xtandi is already approved for sales in U.S. and Pfizer will divide its sales with Medivation’s partnered company, Astellas Pharma Inc.

According to Evaluate Pharma, Xtandi, could be one of the top-selling cancer drugs by 2020. On the other hand, the equal prostate-cancer treatment against Xtandi is produced by Johnson & Johnson called as Zytiga. The analysts believe that J&J may pose a threat to Xtandi in the short-run.

After rejecting the French drug maker Sanofi’s offer in April, the firm reached out to more potential buyers such as Pfizer, Gilead Sciences Inc., Celgene Corp. and Amgen Inc. The deal was initially valued at $9 billion consisting of $58 per share in cash and $3 a share as a contingent value right

The current M&A between the drug and biotechnology industry illustrates the future demand for new cancer treatments adding up to patient’s lives and burgeoning revenues of the companies holding the business.

The Bottom Line
Following the takeover talks, Medivation’s share price have appreciated by two folds in the past six months. Medivation’s investors were upbeat with the news as its share price has increased significantly by around 20% in the pre-market trading on Monday.

Pfizer buys Palo-Alto based Anacor for $5.2B – MercuryNews
Pharma News

TRENTON, N.J. — Pfizer is fortifying its key immunology and inflammation drug business, snapping up a small maker of skin disorder treatments for about $5.2 billion, weeks after the U.S. Treasury Department torpedoed Pfizer’s planned $160 billion deal for Allergan PLC.

Pfizer’s agreement Monday to acquire Anacor Pharmaceuticals, a money-losing developer of topical skin treatments, is the biggest U.S.-based drugmaker’s latest move in a yearslong struggle to accelerate growth.

Pfizer, known for Viagra and pneumonia vaccine Prevnar 13, had been counting on acquiring Dublin-based Allergan and moving its headquarters — on paper — from New York to Ireland to reduce its tax bill. However, Treasury on April 5 issued new rules governing “tax-inversion” deals, removing the financial incentives for buying Allergan.

With Palo Alto-based Anacor, Pfizer gains an experimental eczema treatment that could be approved by the Food and Drug Administration by next January, plus U.S. rights to topical toenail fungus treatment Kerydin and a portfolio of other drugs in early testing.

If approved, its topical eczema medicine, crisaborole, would be the first new medication type in 15 years for eczema, also known as atopic dermatitis.

About 18 million to 25 million people in the U.S. have the chronic inflammatory skin disorder, which causes inflammation and itching, often in skin folds and lasting for two weeks or more. It’s particularly common in infants and children.

Pfizer, which sells blockbuster Enbrel for plaque psoriasis and other immune disorders, said peak annual sales of crisaborole could reach or exceed $2 billion.

Albert Bourla, group president of Pfizer’s vaccines, oncology and consumer health care businesses, called the buyout “attractive,” saying in a statement that there are currently few safe topical treatments for eczema.

Anacor had only $17.5 million in revenue in the first quarter, when it lost $16.1 million.

Its shares soared 55 percent, or $35.50, to $99.53, in afternoon trading Monday. Pfizer shares rose 16 cents to $33.35.

Pfizer will pay $99.25 per Anacor share, 55 percent above its Friday closing price of $64.03.

Anacor holds rights to Kerydin, which is marketed in the U.S. by Sandoz, the generics division of Swiss drug giant Novartis AG. Pfizer said it could repurchase all Kerydin rights from Sandoz at the end of 2017.

In addition, Anacor has licensed rights to three experimental drugs it developed to other companies — agreements that would transfer to Pfizer when the acquisition closes, Pfizer said.

Credit Suisse analyst Vamil Divan wrote to investors that the deal fits Pfizer’s strategy of acquiring drugs that are approved or in late-stage patient testing.

“Given the size of this transaction, we believe (Pfizer) still has plenty of firepower and we would not be surprised to see them announce additional deals in the coming months,” Divan added.

Pfizer expects the transaction to add to its adjusted earnings per share starting in 2018 and increase after that. The company does not expect the acquisition to impact its current 2016 financial outlook.

Boards of both companies have approved the deal, which is expected to close in the third quarter.

Moody’s Investors Service revised Pfizer’s rating outlook to negative from stable, saying “the deal will reduce Pfizer’s U.S. cash levels, increasing the likelihood of future debt issuance for dividend payments, share repurchases or acquisitions.”

Pfizer CEO still interested in deals after losing Allergan – Reuters
Pharma News
, ,

NEW YORK (Reuters) – After a planned purchase of Allergan Plc was scuttled by the U.S. government, Pfizer Chief Executive Ian Read on Tuesday said he would consider another merger of any size, at any time, as long as the deal makes sense.

But he said Pfizer is at least temporarily abandoning its quest to lower taxes by relocating overseas, a main rationale for buying Dublin-based Allergan. The $160 billion deal fell apart last month after the U.S. Treasury Department issued stringent new rules against such tax inversion deals.

Pfizer pays a considerably higher tax rate than European rivals. That has long rankled Read, a trained accountant who took charge of Pfizer in 2010. He argues the higher taxes put the drugmaker at a competitive disadvantage.

“We’ll have to work harder and be smarter,” Read said in an interview. “We can beat any company, whatever advantage they’ve got, if we use our resources better than they do.”

Read said Pfizer’s strong first-quarter results, reported earlier on Tuesday, demonstrated the company’s ability to prosper as a standalone company. “Not having (Allergan) still leaves us with a good hand to play,” he said.

Pfizer remains interested in deals that could help restock its medicine chest and ensure future growth, Read said, though he declined to name any biotech companies that were of particular interest.

“We have cash and resources and I’d entertain a deal of any size; size is not the issue,” he said. “The issue is does it make sense for our shareholders.”

Pfizer plans by late 2016 to decide whether to sell or spin off its generic medicines, which it calls established products. Those products had first-quarter sales of $6 billion. Its other business, of patent-protected medicines, had sales of $7.03 billion.

Read said Pfizer would be more likely in the short term to acquire innovative drugs, following its $16 billion purchase last year of generics maker Hospira.

Asked if future deals were more likely to come before or after Pfizer decides whether to split the company, Read said he could not put such a timeline on a transaction. “Assets appear and you make a decision whether to buy them or not.”

If the opportunity for a major acquisition arises, Read said Pfizer may again have to delay a decision whether to split up the company, as it did when the Allergan merger was announced. Pfizer initially delayed a decision by two years, but restored its original 2016 deadline after the deal fell through.

(Reporting by Ransdell Pierson; Editing by Leslie Adler)

Exclusive: Pfizer approaches Medivation about potential takeover – Reuters
Pharma News, Pharma Notables

Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) has approached U.S. cancer drug maker Medivation Inc (MDVN.O) to express interest in an acquisition, raising the possibility of a bid rivaling a $9.3 billion offer by Sanofi SA (SASY.PA), people familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.

Pfizer’s approach comes less than a week after Sanofi went public with its $52.50 per share cash offer, complaining that Medivation refused to engage. Medivation subsequently rejected the offer as too low. Its shares closed on Tuesday at $57.52.

Medivation has not yet decided whether it should engage with Pfizer in negotiations and is in discussions with its financial and legal advisers, the people said. There is no certainty that Pfizer will press ahead with a bid, they added.

Sanofi currently has no plans to raise its offer and is waiting for Medivation to launch an auction to sell itself before it makes any new bid, some of the people said.

The sources asked not to be identified because the matter is not public. Medivation, Sanofi and Pfizer declined to comment.

Based in San Francisco, Medivation is best known for its oncology drug Xtandi, which treats prostate cancer.

For Pfizer, a deal with Medivation would mark another attempt at building scale in patented drugs after it scrapped its $160 billion acquisition of Dublin-based Allergan Plc (AGN.N) last month.

The breakdown came days after the U.S. Treasury issued new rules that weighed on Pfizer’s ability to slash its tax bill by using the deal to redomicile in Ireland.

Earlier on Tuesday, Pfizer Chief Executive Ian Read said in an interview with Reuters that he would consider another merger of any size, as long as the deal makes sense. He did not comment on Medivation.

Sanofi is vying for Medivation in an attempt to expand in the lucrative oncology sector, as it struggles to compensate for declining revenues from a key diabetes drug that recently lost patent protection.

Sanofi’s unsolicited approach for Medivation has echoes of its bid for rare disease drug maker Genzyme in 2011. It took Sanofi nine months to overcome Genzyme’s resistance. It also offered Genzyme shareholders so-called contingent value rights, which offered them additional payments if the acquired company was able to achieve certain performance milestones.

Using contingent value rights in the case of Medivation may be more challenging for Sanofi, given its lackluster track record in cancer drugs. However, Sanofi has no plans to use contingent value rights in any new offer, according to the sources.

(Reporting by Lauren Hirsch and Carl O’Donnell in New York; Additional reporting by Ben Hirschler in London and Greg Roumeliotis in New York; Editing by Dan Grebler)

Shareholders Criticize Pfizer After Scrapped Allergan Deal – abc news
Pharma News

Just weeks after the collapse of Pfizer’s controversial deal to buy fellow drugmaker Allergan and move its headquarters to Ireland, company executives faced sharp criticism from shareholders at their annual meeting.

The record $160 billion deal was structured as an inversion, in which an American multinational company moves its headquarters on paper — but little else — to another country with lower tax rates. Rules issued by the U.S. Treasury Department on April 5 eliminated most of the Allergan deal’s financial incentives and forced New York-based Pfizer and Dublin, Ireland-based Allergan to drop their deal the next day.

One shareholder accused Pfizer of offering too much for Allergan, given its stock plunge after the deal was scrapped. He asked Pfizer CEO Ian Read who was protecting the interests of shareholders.

Read responded that Pfizer’s board and outside advisors at two investment banks all supported the offer price, and executives believed the acquisition would be good for Pfizer.

“I believe the transaction would have produced substantial gains for shareholders,” Read said.

He told another shareholder asking about the scrapped deal that Pfizer would have been able to market Allergan’s drugs internationally, which would have boosted their sales because Allergan mostly sells its medicines in the U.S.

Another shareholder asked whether Pfizer would try to do another inversion deal.

“I’m very pleased that the Allergan merger failed (and) that our company will remain all-American,” the man said.

Read said Pfizer instead will decide by year’s end whether to separate its business that sells its older drugs, mostly in developing countries — a strategy some analysts and investors have long urged as a way to accelerate growth. Read said the Allergan deal would have made Pfizer more competitive against big European drugmakers that pay lower corporate tax rates, and it would have enabled Pfizer to invest more in the U.S.

“We will redouble our efforts to try to get (U.S.) tax reform,” he added.

With the Treasury Department’s new inversion rules specifically meant to block the Allergan deal, he added, “the U.S. is no longer a country of laws” and companies won’t know what to expect as they plan future business deals.

Other speakers at the meeting urged Pfizer to do more to help patients afford its medicines, including in poor countries.

One shareholder complained about Pfizer’s stock price, which has long been well below that of its major rivals.

“Pfizer shares have not gone basically anywhere over the years,” the man said.

Read countered that “total stock return over the last five years” — the length of his tenure — has beaten that of the Standard & Poor’s 500 index and its drug index.

Meanwhile, preliminary vote totals on company proposals showed more than 90 percent of shares were voted to approve the company’s auditor, new one-year terms for board members and the compensation packages of Pfizer’s top executives. All four shareholder proposals failed to pass.