IBJNews

Lilly chief says China too slow in approving new drugs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

China takes eight years longer on average to approve drugs than other major countries, and U.S. drugmakers are looking at ways to help speed things up, Eli Lilly and Co. CEO John Lechleiter said.

“This is a drug lag that I hope we are able to close in the coming years, by working with Chinese authorities to speed up the process of doing clinical trials in China,” Lechleiter said Wednesday in an interview in Beijing. The 59-year-old executive is spending the week in China to meet with government officials and business executives as chairman of the industry group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Lilly itself aims to conduct simultaneous late-stage tests in China for products such as the experimental diabetes drug dulaglutide, according to Lechleiter. The Indianapolis-based drugmaker wants introduce more than a dozen medicines in China in the next five years, including drugs for diabetes and cancer, and aims to keep sales there growing 25 percent as they did last year, he said in March.

Drugmakers are working to expand their offerings in China, the world’s fastest-growing pharmaceuticals market, as revenue drops elsewhere, hurt by expiring patents on blockbusters. Lilly in October said quarterly earnings had missed analyst estimates after generic competition hurt revenue from the schizophrenia treatment Zyprexa, once the company’s top-selling drug.

Lechleiter said “prospects are good” for further expansion of Lilly’s drug-manufacturing operations in China. The company opened a second plant in June this year in the eastern city of Suzhou.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Chinatized
    Your right Gman. That's what happens to all profitable American products. They need to introduce drugs that will sterilize them. They keep popping outy low cost labor at 7 per second.
  • Yeah, 'cause...
    ... they probably spend most of that time trying to reverse engineer them, so they counterfit them & sell 'em back to us.

    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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

    2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

    3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

    4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

    5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

    ADVERTISEMENT