IBJNews

FDA gets new report on Lilly diabetes drug

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Drugmakers Eli Lilly and Co. and Amylin Pharmaceuticals Inc. said Monday that patients taking their potential once-weekly diabetes treatment, Bydureon, saw a significant improvement in cardiovascular risk factors like high blood pressure when compared to patients who received common diabetes treatments.

The companies said a new analysis of late-stage trial data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received Bydureon also saw improvements in body weight and cholesterol levels.

Indianapolis-based Lilly said in a statement that diabetes patients are at least twice as likely as people without the disease to have heart disease or a stroke, and chronic conditions like obesity, high blood pressure or cholesterol increase this risk. The findings will be presented at the 47th European Association for the Study of Diabetes Annual Meeting in Lisbon, Portugal.

Lilly and Amylin, which is headquartered in San Diego, are working with Alkermes Inc. to develop the drug. The FDA plans to make a decision on whether to approve it by the end of January.

It declined to approve Bydureon last October. It asked the companies to run a thorough study that evaluated the effects of high doses of Bydureon on patients' heart rates. It also asked for data from a study that tested the effectiveness and the labeling of the safety and effectiveness, of the commercial formulation of the drug.

Bydureon contains the same ingredient as Lilly and Amylin's diabetes drug Byetta. Alkermes, of Waltham, Mass., created the technology that releases the drug over the course of a week for more convenient dosing. European Union regulators approved Bydureon in June.

Byetta, a twice-daily injection that has been sold since 2005, generated $710.2 million in sales last year.

Lilly shares fell 9 cents, to $36.04 each, in Monday trading.

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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT