IBJNews

  • Home

Lilly halts late-stage testing of rheumatoid arthritis drug

Bloomberg News
February 7, 2013
Keywords
Diseases, Drug discovery, Eli Lilly and Co., Health Care, Health Care & Insurance, Health Care & Life Sciences, Health Care Businesses, Pharmaceutical, R&D
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Eli Lilly and Co. said it is halting testing of an experimental drug for rheumatoid arthritis because the studies show the medicine is not effective.

The decision to stop testing the therapy, called tabalumab, in rheumatoid arthritis wasn’t based on safety concerns, the Indianapolis-based drugmaker said Thursday in a prepared statement. Lilly said it will continue to develop it as a treatment for lupus.

In December, Lilly said it was stopping one of three late-stage rheumatoid arthritis studies of tabalumab after it failed to provide a benefit. Lilly then did an analysis of the other two studies and determined the drug was unlikely to help patients. The setback comes as Lilly, counting on sales of new medicines to revive growth, faces generic competition to schizophrenia drug Zyprexa, which generated $5 billion in annual revenue before losing patent protection in October 2011.

“While we are obviously disappointed by these results in rheumatoid arthritis, we continue to believe that tabalumab could have significant potential for patients in other disease areas,” said Eiry Roberts, vice president of autoimmune product development at Lilly, in a statement.

Lilly shares fell about 1 percent Thursday morning, to $53.41 each.
 

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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
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