IBJNews

For Lilly, it's a big one that got away

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Mark this one in Eli Lilly and Co.’s “Oops!” category.

An experimental medicine for hepatitis C that Lilly helped identify and develop is now on the cusp of market approval. According to an article in Xconomy.com, a biotech trade publication, some analysts are predicting as much as $2 billion in annual U.S. sales after the drug's expected market launch in 2011.

But in December 2002, Lilly sold back its rights to the drug, telaprevir, to its inventor, Massachusetts-based Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc

Any revenue from telaprevir, which would have been split with Vertex, would have been awfully nice right now for Lilly. The Indianapolis-based drugmaker will watch patents expire on its cancer drug Gemzar in November and its antipsyhotic blockbuster Zyprexa a year later.

Cheaper generic copies will steal the lion’s share of those two drugs’ $6 billion in annual sales.

“It’s a decision that Lilly has to regret,” Xconomy.com reporter Ryan McBride wrote about telaprevir, which proved effective for three out of four patients with hepatitis C, a chronic liver disease, during a large Phase 3 clinical trial.

McBride cited a former Vertex executive who said telaprevir’s champions within Lilly were shuffled off the program, and it subsequently fell down Lilly’s priority list.

Vertex later signed co-development deals with New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson and Japan-based Mitsubishi Tanabe, according to Xconomy.com.

“At Lilly, we regularly review our portfolio and sometimes re-prioritize assets based on resource availability,” Lilly spokesman Mark Taylor said in a statement. “Although we may decide to discontinue internal development of a molecule, we many times try to find ways to allow partner companies to continue the development. We believe this is in the best interest of the patients who may ultimately benefit if a new medicine makes it to the market."

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