IBJNews

Lilly's Cialis finally overtakes Viagra

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Why do drugmakers still pursue so many me-too drugs? Because, if marketed well, they can be extremely lucrative. Just ask Eli Lilly and Co. about its drug Cialis.

In March, the erectile dysfunction medication overtook Pfizer Inc.’s Viagra in share of the global market for ED drugs.

Given Viagra’s iconic status as the drug that created the market—a drug that became a storyline in late-'90s TV shows like "Ally McBeal" and "Sex in the City," as well as a punchline for the talking heads on ESPN’s "SportsCenter"—that is a remarkable milestone.

Lilly launched Cialis in 2003, more than five years after Viagra pioneered the market. Its marketing campaign began in force—with the somewhat bizarre image of outdoor bathtubs facing a mountain sunset—with TV commercials during the 2004 Super Bowl.

Lilly emphasized the 36-hour window during which Cialis users can have an erection, versus Viagra’s four-hour window.

"This year we will overtake Viagra in terms of the number of prescriptions worldwide," Lilly CEO John Lechleiter told the German publication WirtschaftsWoche, according to a report from Reuters.

In fact, Cialis finally appears to have knocked Viagra out of the No. 1 spot. In March, Cialis claimed about 41 percent of the market compared with Viagra’s 39 percent, according to IMS Health data presented by Lilly to investors on June 30.

Cialis’ biggest success lately has been outside the United States—that is, where Viagra’s cultural hold isn’t as deep. Sales exceeded $1 billion outside the U.S. last year, even though cheaper generic Viagra is available in some countries.

Overall, Cialis sales totaled $1.7 billion last year, an increase of 9 percent over the previous year.

Lilly is now trying to stoke further Cialis sales by pushing it in Europe as a medication for hypertension. It is also seeking U.S. approval for Cialis as a treatment for prostate enlargement—a condition that occurs in half of men who have erectile dysfunction.

Some analysts think those additional uses will keep Cialis sales growing consistently for many more years. Citi analyst John Boris predicts Cialis sales in 2015 of $2.2 billion.

But others think Viagra’s patent expiration in the United States next year will begin to erode Cialis sales. Morgan Stanley analyst David Risinger predicts 2015 Cialis sales of just $1.4 billion.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Cialis Sales
    Hey I would like to know if where it says "Overall, Cialis sales totaled $1.7 billion last year" is that worldwide or in the US. Thank you.

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. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT