IBJNews

Lilly falls short on 'field goal' attempt

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co.’s “miss” on a new use for its cancer drug Alimta was a rare failure to get an existing drug approved for a new use—even though the company has struggled mightily to get entirely new drugs to market.

The Indianapolis-based drugmaker announced Monday that it will not submit Alimta to regulators as a treatment for head and neck cancer. That’s another setback for Lilly, which is desperately trying to find new sales streams before it starts hemorraghing revenue a year from now when its bestseller Zyprexa loses patent protection in the United States and Europe.

Alimta has been Lilly’s fastest-growing drug the past two years, generating $1.1 billion in sales during the first half of this year. Having approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use the drug for treating head and neck cancers certainly would have added to that total.

But a Phase 3 clinical trial showed that cancer patients taking Alimta and the chemotherapy agent cisplatin only saw insignificant benefits compared with patients taking cisplatin alone.

In the pharma world, approval for entirely new drugs is like scoring touchdowns—they get the most points (er, dollars) on the board. But approval for additional uses for an existing drug, known as a line extension, are like field goals—they still add to the score.

Line extensions are a big reason why Lilly’s sales soared from 2006 to 2009, rising nearly 40 percent, even though the company won approval for only one new drug. (And that new drug, the blood thinner Effient, has seen insignificant sales to date.)

Some of the line extensions Lilly has won approval for include the antidepressant Cymbalta as a treatment for generalized anxiety and fibromyalgia, the erectile-dysfunction drug Cialis as a treatment for hypertension, the osteoporosis drug Evista to treat breast cancer, and a once-a-month version of the antipsychotic Zyprexa.

But Lilly has drawn far more attention for its high-profile failures on experimental drugs. In August, it halted a trial of an Alzheimer’s medicine because it actually made patients worse. Lilly drugs designed to treat multiple sclerosis, osteoprosis and diabetic eye disease also have failed in recent years.

As a result of Lilly’s innovation drought, the company is looking to acquire molecules from smaller companies that have a shot at producing revenue in 2014. That will be Lilly’s most difficult year, coming right after Lilly’s No. 2 drug Cymbalta will lose patent protection.

"Our company situation means we're particularly interested in late-stage opportunities that can be revenue-generating in 2014," Jan Lundberg, president of Lilly's research arm, told the Wall Street Journal in a September interview.

Lilly has looked at roughly 1,000 potential acquisition targets this year, but has done deals with only a few companies, Lundberg said. He added that the financial struggles of biotech companies since the 2008 financial meltdown give Lilly lots of targets to consider.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Zyprexa saga
    Eli Lilly & Co's once-a-month version of its top-selling antipsychotic medicine Zyprexa, while effective, has risks that include excessive sleepiness, U.S. regulators said.

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