IBJNews

Eli Lilly's profit shoots up despite lackluster sales

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Shares of Eli Lilly and Co. fell about 3 percent in morning trading Wednesday after the drugmaker reported better-than-expected earnings, but flat revenue, for the first quarter.

Lilly also said regulators had agreed to a priority review of the company's potential stomach cancer treatment.

The Indianapolis-based company said the Food and Drug Administration will evaluate ramucirumab under a program designed for drugs that treat serious or life-threatening diseases for which there are few other therapies. Fast-track, or priority, status gives companies extra meetings and correspondence with regulators throughout the review process, and it allows the drugmaker to submit data as it compiles it.

Lilly is seeking approval for ramucirumab as a second treatment in patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers that have spread. Gastric cancer affects the stomach lining and often goes undetected while developing slowly. Gastroesophageal junction cancer forms where the esophagus connects to the stomach.

The company said last year that the experimental drug met goals for improved patient survival in late-stage clinical research.

Lilly also recently submitted a new type 2 diabetes treatment it developed with German drugmaker Boehringer Ingelheim to the FDA. The company said Wednesday that treatment and ramucirumab are the first two of what could be five drugs submitted to U.S. regulators this year.

Investors are watching Lilly's pipeline of developing drugs closely because the company is losing U.S. patent protection for some key products, and it needs to replace that revenue. Lilly lost patent protection for its all-time best selling drug, the antipsychotic Zyprexa, in late 2011, and its sales have plunged since being exposed to cheaper generic competition. The company also loses protection at the end of this year for current top-seller, the antidepressant Cymbalta.

In the first quarter, Lilly's earnings jumped 53 percent largely due to a $495 million payment for the transfer to former drug development partner Amylin Pharmaceuticals of commercial rights outside the United States for the diabetes treatment exenatide.

Lilly earned $1.55 billion, or $1.42 per share, in the three months that ended March 31. That compares to $1.01 billion, or 91 cents per share, in last year's quarter.

Not counting the exenatide payment, Lilly reported adjusted earnings of $1.14 per share. Analysts expected, on average, earnings of $1.05 per share, according to FactSet.

The drugmaker said its revenue stayed flat at $5.6 billion, as lower sales volume and unfavorable foreign exchange rates countered gains from higher prices. Analysts expected $5.67 billion in revenue.

Revenue from Cymbalta rose 19 percent, to $1.33 billion, and sales of the erectile dysfunction drug Cialis climbed 11 percent, to $515 million. But revenue from Zyprexa tumbled 49 percent, to $284.8 million.

The drugmaker also reaffirmed its forecast for 2013 earnings to range between $3.82 and $3.97 per share on $22.6 billion to $23.4 billion in revenue.

Analysts expect, on average, earnings of $3.90 per share on $23 billion in revenue.

Lilly shares were down 2.8 percent near midday, to $56.75 each. The company's stock price had risen 18.3 percent this yea after closing Tuesday at $58.33. It has been lifted by the broader markets and by investors’ rising hopes in the pipeline potential of all pharmaceutical companies.

 

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. 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