Lilly cancer drug OK'd for new use

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Eli Lilly and Co.'s top rising-star drug has been OK'd by U.S. regulators for a new use, an event that could boost sales of the medication.

Alimta, a lung cancer drug, was approved as a maintenance therapy for non-small cell lung cancer for certain patients, Lilly announced today. The approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is for patients with tumor types called nonsquamous that have already responded to standard chemotherapy.

Sales of Alimta grew 36 percent, to $335 million, in the first three months of this year, compared with the same period a year ago. No other Lilly drug is growing as fast. In 2008, Alimta racked up sales of $1.15 billion.

Alimta first hit the market in 2004 to as a secondary treatment for non-small cell lung cancer and malignant pleural mesothelioma, another kind of lung cancer. In 2008, Alimta won approval as a primary treatment against non-small cell lung cancer.

Now it can be used to help keep cancer patients progression-free longer.

"Previously, patients received best supportive care following their chemotherapy. Now physicians and patients have a new option to improve survival," Dr. Richard Gaynor, Lilly's vice president of cancer research, said in a statement.


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. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. 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.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. 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.