Despite sales spike, Effient has middling prospects

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Remember Effient? The blood thinner that was once Eli Lilly and Co.’s greatest post-Zyprexa hope and then, after a slow launch, was dismissed as an abject failure? Well, it’s turning out to defy both predictions.

Indianapolis-based Lilly and its development partner on the drug, Japan-based Daiichi Sankyo Inc., posted $72 million in sales of Effient during the second quarter, up from $56 million in the first quarter and $47 million in the fourth quarter of 2010.

Effient’s accelerating sales is good news for Lilly, which desperately needs new revenue to replace revenue that will be lost to generics when its $5-billion-a-year Zyprexa sees its U.S. and European patents expire in October.

And while Lilly's and Daiichi’s marketing directors say they can keep Effient sales growing at the 28-percent clip they did in the second quarter, analysts at best think Effient will reach $1 billion by 2016, one year before its patent expires.

“Cardiologists, but particularly interventional cardiologists, are gaining confidence around the product,” said Vince Truax, Lilly’s marketing manager for Effient.  “We’ve got three-quarters of interventional cardiologists writing Effient [prescriptions] right now.”

Effient is used, in combination with aspirin, to prevent blood clots in patients who have had a heart attack, stroke or severe chest pain and have been treated with angioplasty. It’s often first prescribed in hospitals, when heart attack patients are rushed to the emergency room.

Given those circumstances, Lilly and Daiichi found that cardiologists wanted to be absolutely sure how Effient would work in patients before using it regularly. Physicians already have a well-established product in Plavix that they can use in heart patients.

“As we talk to more interventional cardiologists and run it through the market, they’re seeing clarity of where to use the product,” Truax said.

That clarity has focused on two specific groups of patients. The first are those who are having a heart attack and have a heart rhythm that is elevated at a specific point on an electrocardiogram. The second group are do not have the elevated rhythm, but do have chest pain or are having a heart attack, and are also at risk of diabetes.

It’s in these two subgroups of patients where Effient is gaining most traction, Truax said.

“This is a launch in a very narrow set of a patient type. It’s still a significant market. In that context, we feel good about the performance,” Truax said.

Analysts, though, had hoped Effient would be able to broaden out for use in many groups of heart patients. That broader use is what drove Plavix to generate the second-highest amount of sales of any drug in the world for its makers, New York-based Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and France-based Sanofi Aventis SA.

Because Plavix’s U.S. patent expires in November (and already has expired in many European markets), analysts said Effient would have to establish a big market presence early in order to have a chance against cheaper generics. That hasn’t happened.

Now, to complicate matters further, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last week approved Brilinta, a drug made by United Kingdom-based AstraZeneca plc, for the broad uses Plavix is approved for.

The combination of competitive threats has led most analysts to predict Effient as a middling performer from now until its patent life ends.

“Effient’s launch has been disappointing in the U.S.,” wrote Deutsche Bank analyst Barbara Ryan in a July 22 note. “It has also been launched in most major European markets, but faces additional competitive pressures there from widely available generic Plavix products and from the recently approved Plavix alternative from AZN [Brilinta].”


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.