Analysts demand news on next Lilly blockbuster

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co. spends a lot of time these days telling the rest of the story—how well it’s doing in areas not connected to highly lucrative drugs about to see their patents expire. But for the most part, investors and analysts just want to know when the next blockbuster will be coming.

That was certainly the case Monday morning, when analysts peppered Lilly’s R&D chief Jan Lundberg with questions about Lilly’s experimental Alzheimer’s medicine, solanezumab.

Lundberg fielded four questions about the drug during a one-hour conference call. At one point he chuckled and replied, “I appreciate your interest in solanezumab. It certainly could be a tremendous agent for patients with Alzheimer’s.”

Indeed, as no existing medicine does more than temporarily mask the symptoms of Alzheimer's, a drug that actually halts progression of the disease would be a monumental breakthrough. Some analysts have pegged the sales potential at $5 billion a year.

Only a drug of that magnitude could really offset the massive revenue Lilly will lose to patent expirations in the next three years. Three key drugs—Zyprexa, Cymbalta and Evista—will face competition from generic copies between now and 2014. Lilly will lose the lion’s share of those drugs' sales, which last year was a combined $9.5 billion.

In addition, Lilly lost patent protection late last year on its cancer drug Gemzar, which brought in another $1 billion a year.

Linda Bannister, a pharmaceutical analyst at Edward Jones in St. Louis, cited Lilly’s Alzheimer’s program and an experimental cholesterol drug, known as a CETP inhibitor, as its best shots at new blockbusters.

“Those are the things that really come to mind that could be game changers, if successful,” she said.

But both are high-risk ventures. Lilly was embarrassed late last summer when another experimental Alzheimer’s drug failed spectacularly in a late-stage clinical trial, actually worsening some patients’ condition. Lilly halted the trial of that medicine, semagacestat.

Lundberg said Monday that Lilly was seeing better safety results in its clinical trials of solanezumab.

“What I can say is that the safety profile so far in these trials looks better than for semagacestat, and there are actually less patients that have stopped the trials because of safety issues,” Lundberg said.

Lilly expects final data from its clinical trials to be available in mid-2012.

Even so, the company has no chance of bringing new drugs to market in time to substantially offset its looming revenue loss over the next few years.

“That’s clearly not going to be the case,” Bannister said, adding, “It’s going to be a little too late.”

Instead, Lilly is letting its profit drop—by as much as 12 percent this year. And many analysts don’t expect profits to grow anytime before 2015.

In the meantime, the company is trying to woo investors by talking about its rapid growth rates in Japan and China, as well as in its animal health business. Those three areas experienced first-quarter sale growth of 34 percent, 23 percent and 25 percent, respectively.

Those are impressive rates. But combined sales in those business areas were $3.4 billion last year—about one-seventh of Lilly’s overall revenue.

“Our clients are interested in the emerging markets story. We believe that could be an engine for growth,” Bannister said. “But that’s more of a long-term story. It’s really the near-term challenges that everyone is focused on.”


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.