IBJNews

Alzheimer's drug results leave Lilly 'excited' but uncertain

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The surprise positive effect shown by an experimental Alzheimer’s drug “excited” executives at Eli Lilly and Co., but it raised as many questions as it answered.

The drug, solanezumab, appeared to slow the mental decline of patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease, according to the pooled results of two clinical trials, which included more than 2,050 patients from 16 countries, Indianapolis-based Lilly announced Friday morning.

But solanezumab did not meet its primary goal in either trial alone of slowing the decline in thinking and daily functioning in both mild and moderate Alzheimer’s patients.

Those mixed results surprised Wall Street, where stock analysts gave solanezumab less than a 20 percent chance of showing any benefit. Investors bid up Lilly’s shares as much as 6 percent after markets opened Friday. Shares were trading at $43.55, up 2.7 percent, near midday.

“We are encouraged by the data we have seen in patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease,” Dave Ricks, president of Lilly’s bio-medicines’ business unit, said during an online press conference Friday.

But he quickly moved on to talk about Lilly’s other pipeline drugs, which include a different Alzheimer’s drug. “We have a deep pipeline in Alzheimer’s disease, as well as 11 other drugs in Phase 3 developments, that are of interest to us.”

Lilly officials declined to quantify how much of a difference solanezumab made for mild Alzheimer’s patients. Nor would it say what it’s next move will be, other than to discuss the data with U.S. and foreign regulators.

Lilly could ask the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to put the drug on the market based solely on these two trials and some data showing that solanezumab removes the protein believed to cause Alzheimer’s from patients brains.

Or FDA regulators might demand a new clinical trial focused on patients with only mild Alzheimer’s disease or even with pre-Alzheimer’s symptoms. Or Lilly could scrap solanezumab altogether and focus instead on other drugs in its pipeline.

Dr. Tim Anderson, a pharmaceutical analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., wrote in a research note Friday that the FDA might accept only partially successful results because Alzheimer’s patients have no good options now—and because solanezumab had only modest side effects.

But, he added, "Our best guess is that more studies would have to be done before FDA or other regulatory agencies would consider approving solanezumab."

If Lilly is able to launch the first effective treatment for Alzheimer’s, it could reap as much as $9 billion in annual sales, according to analyst predictions. The memory-sapping disease requires enormous resources to care for the 5 million Americans and 18 million people worldwide who suffer from it.

Lilly could use the money. Sales of its bestseller Zyprexa, an antipsychotic medicine, have fallen off dramatically since it lost patent protection in the United States and Europe nearly a year ago. And Lilly will suffer similar losses at the end of 2013 when patents on its antidepressant Cymbalta expire.

Those two drugs combined had peak sales of $9 billion. And Lilly faces the patent expiration on two more drugs that could steal away even more of its sales.

Ricks reiterated Friday that the company will not let its annual revenue fall below $20 billion and will maintain profit of at least $3 billion per year. In 2011, Lilly brought in revenue of $24.3 billion with a profit of $4.35 billion.

Lilly’s drug solanezumab fights Alzheimer’s by trying to remove a protein called amyloid beta from patients’ brains. The build-up of amyloid into clumps and plaques is believed by many to stop the functioning of neurons, leading to memory loss and eventually death.

A similar-acting medicine developed by New York-based Pfizer Inc., New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson and Ireland-based Elan Corp. showed no benefit in patients in Phase 3 clinical trial data released earlier this month. Half a dozen other companies also have experimental Alzheimer’s drugs in some stage of human testing.

The soonest to report results will be Germany-based Baxter International Inc. Its drug GammaGard, which is already on the market to treat immune system deficincies, has shown some evidence that it blocks amyloid proteins.

Expectations were low for Lilly’s solanezumab because so many previous drugs to treat Alzheimer’s have failed. Also, recent research indicates the disease actually begins 10 or 20 years before it can be diagnosed. So, many researchers believed Lilly was giving solanezumab to patients who were too far gone to be helped.

“There’s been a lot of discussion in the field, that even for patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease, that might be too late,” Dr. Eric Siemers, Lilly’s medical director for its Alzheimer’s team, said during the Friday press conference. “For us to see what appears to be a signal in this pooled data, in the mild patients, we’re actually quite pleased with. Because that would suggest you don’t have to move much earlier in the pathology of the disease.”

Siemers said Lilly is having independent academic researchers connected with the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study analyze Lilly’s raw data from its clinical trials of solanezumab. They will release their conclusions Oct. 8 in Boston at a conference of the American Neurological Association.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. These liberals are out of control. They want to drive our economy into the ground and double and triple our electric bills. Sierra Club, stay out of Indy!

  2. These activist liberal judges have gotten out of control. Thankfully we have a sensible supreme court that overturns their absurd rulings!

  3. Maybe they shouldn't be throwing money at the IRL or whatever they call it now. Probably should save that money for actual operations.

  4. For you central Indiana folks that don't know what a good pizza is, Aurelio's will take care of that. There are some good pizza places in central Indiana but nothing like this!!!

  5. I am troubled with this whole string of comments as I am not sure anyone pointed out that many of the "high paying" positions have been eliminated identified by asterisks as of fiscal year 2012. That indicates to me that the hospitals are making responsible yet difficult decisions and eliminating heavy paying positions. To make this more problematic, we have created a society of "entitlement" where individuals believe they should receive free services at no cost to them. I have yet to get a house repair done at no cost nor have I taken my car that is out of warranty for repair for free repair expecting the government to pay for it even though it is the second largest investment one makes in their life besides purchasing a home. Yet, we continue to hear verbal and aggressive abuse from the consumer who expects free services and have to reward them as a result of HCAHPS surveys which we have no influence over as it is 3rd party required by CMS. Peel the onion and get to the root of the problem...you will find that society has created the problem and our current political landscape and not the people who were fortunate to lead healthcare in the right direction before becoming distorted. As a side note, I had a friend sit in an ED in Canada for nearly two days prior to being evaluated and then finally...3 months later got a CT of the head. You pay for what you get...

ADVERTISEMENT