IBJNews

Lilly: Forget Alzheimer's; think diabetes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For more than a year, Eli Lilly and Co. has been viewed by investors as a laggard stock with one, slim shot at producing a huge jackpot: its experimental Alzheimer’s drug. But now company leaders are trying to direct investor attention toward what they view as a sure-fire bet: the drugmaker’s diabetes portfolio.

Lilly brass spent significant time during an investor conference call last month talking up their diabetes pipeline. Then last week they scheduled a special 90-minute call on June 11 that will be devoted to nothing but the diabetes pipeline.

There’s good reason for this. Some analysts put the chances of success of solanezumab, Lilly’s experimental Alzheimer’s medicine, at 10 percent or less. If it succeeds, the drug could generate $10 billion in annual sales and negate challenges posed by the string of patent loses on blockbuster drugs through which Lilly is suffering.

But diabetes has a 100-percent chance of bringing Lilly significantly more revenue over the next few years, as the incidence of the chronic disease rises sharply across the globe. That will help Lilly sell more of its insulins and its latest product, called Tradjenta.

Most analysts expect Lilly’s diabetes sales to grow more than 30 percent over the next four years—even before any new drugs coming out of its pipeline. That would mean an additional $1.3 billion in annual revenue.

And if the pipeline starts producing winners, the potential is even greater.

“LLY has one of the most attractive diabetes portfolios amongst its peer group,” Barclays Capital analyst Tony Butler wrote in an April 25 research note, referring to Lilly by its ticker symbol. “While there are inherent risks in all clinical programs, we believe diabetes could be an area that offers a lower risk profile as compared to that of Alzheimer’s or oncology.”

What’s in Lilly’s diabetes pipeline? A drug called empagliflozin is designed to boost glucose re-absorption in patients' kidneys, thus reducing levels of glucose in their blood.

Another drug is a glucagon-like peptide called dulaglutide, which Lilly thinks so highly of that it sold off its rights to the pioneer of this class of drugs, Byetta, which it launched in 2005 along with the drug’s creator, California-based Amylin Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Also, Lilly is developing two once-daily basal insulins—which if approved could finally stem the losses Lilly has suffered since the 2000 launch of the first basal insulin, Lantus.

“So I think all of this augurs well for us being able to offer a broad range of products to the dietologist, to the physician to really focus on what the patient needs and not just on what we have to offer,” Lilly CEO John Lechleiter said during the April 25 conference call.

Lilly is admittedly trying to play catch up to Denmark-based Novo Nordisk A/S and France-based Sanofi-Aventis SA in the diabetes business. In 1923, Lilly was the global pioneer of insulin. But its diabetes sales in recent years have grown half as fast as the overall global 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. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.

ADVERTISEMENT