IBJNews

Can Lilly capitalize on Alzheimer's breakthrough?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Eli Lilly and Co. has apparently made major medical history by being the first to develop a drug that alters the course of Alzheimer’s disease. But whether Lilly can be the first to make major money from a disease-altering Alzheimer’s drug is still in doubt.

That’s because Wall Street analysts think Indianapolis-based Lilly almost certainly must conduct another Phase 3 clinical trial of its drug solanezumab, which will need to run even longer than the 18-month trials from which it just reported results. Solanezumab is commonly shortened to merely “sola.”

Such a trial could fail to affirm the results Lilly found in its first two Phase 3 clinical trials of sola (even their results were not entirely consistent). Or it could take so long that a competitor—and there are plenty of them—could beat Lilly to market with an effective treatment against Alzheimer’s.

“We fully expect that LLY will have to conduct further trials that are likely larger and longer than the existing database, but could conceivably be completed over the next several years,” Goldman Sachs Group analyst Jami Rubin wrote in a note to investors, referring to Lilly by its ticker symbol.  Her comments echo the sentiment of nearly all Wall Street analysts, most of whom think Lilly could not bring sola to market until 2017 or 2018.

“We note that there are many large pharma companies all competing to be the first to market with a disease-modifying drug for Alzheimer’s disease, thus LLY may not necessarily be first to market or the only company to compete,” Rubin added.

Other companies with Alzheimer’s disease drugs in or about to start Phase 3 trials include Illinois-based Baxter International and Switzerland-based Roche Group.

The stakes are huge for Lilly. The first effective Alzheimer’s drug to hit the market could garner $5 billion to $10 billion in annual sales, according to analysts’ estimates. Tony Butler, a pharmaceutical analyst at Barclay Capital, predicts that if sola were launched next year, it could reach a peak of $6 billion a year in sales. If it is launched in 2017, and other drugs compete with it, sola’s peak sales would likely be only $4 billion.

The first problem for Lilly is that sola failed the two primary goals in each of its Phase 3 clinical trials, which was to slow both the decline in thinking and daily functioning that occurs in both mild and moderate Alzheimer’s disease.

Sola did slow mental decline in mild patients 34 percent, which was statistically significant, and did slow declines in daily functioning 17 percent, a result that was encouraging but not statistically significant.

But even so, there is no historical precedent of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approving a drug that failed all the primary goals of its clinical trials, noted Butler.

A second problem is that, while the 34-percent decline sounds impressive, the mild patients in Lilly studies enjoyed just a two-point benefit in mental scores on the standard test given to Alzheimer’s patients, which is called ADAS-Cog. The name stands for Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive.

By contrast, a drug already on the market, Pfizer's Aricept, which relieves the symptoms of Alzheimer’s for a time but does not slow the progression of the disease, reduces mild patient’s ADAS-Cog scores by nearly 3 points after just six months.

“The absolute change in ADAS-COG score after 18 months of treatment, however, was small,” Butler wrote in an Oct. 9 research note. “It remains controversial whether this magnitude of benefit would be significant on the single-patient level in the real world.”

A third problem is that sola is given to patients through 30-minute infusion sessions. But five drugmakers, including Lilly, are developing a class of oral Alzheimer’s drugs—called BACE inhibitors—which if effective, would be far more convenient.

“Docs we spoke with weren’t that impressed with the failed studies and limited (1-2 pts of ADAS-COG) improvement,” wrote UBS analyst Marc Goodman in a research note. “Even if we have a drug, is it even more effective than Aricept and this isn't even a pill?”

Lilly officials have yet to present their sola data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. They say they will talk with regulators before they decide whether to conduct another Phase 3 trial.

If another trial is needed, it would likely take Lilly 12 to 18 months to recruit clinicians and patients, probably two years to run and analyze the results, and at least another year before gaining FDA approval. That’s a four-year delay.

What sola has going in its favor is that there are no effective treatments for Alzheimer’s, and sola proved very safe in its Phase 3 trials. In addition, even though sola’s effect on mild patients was small, it grew consistently over time, leading Lilly officials to conclude that the drug’s impact will only grow the longer patients take it.

"We’re seeing with solanezumab a steady and increasing effect," said Dave Ricks, president of Lilly’s Bio-Medicines business unit, during a conference call with investors. He added, "We need to start reframinig our definition of what a good efficacy number is."

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. liek the rest of America

  2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

  3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

  4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

  5. whoa!

ADVERTISEMENT