IBJNews

Lilly halts trial of experimental Alzheimers drug

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly & Co. said it stopped a mid-stage trial of an experimental Alzheimer’s drug designed to mimic the effect of a rare genetic mutation that may protect against the disease.

The trial of LY2886721 ended after participants showed abnormal liver biochemistry, Lilly said Thursday in a statement. The drug was in the second of three phases of clinical trials typically required before regulatory approval and was being tested in about 150 patients. Lilly said it plans to take an undisclosed financial charge that won’t affect 2013 guidance.

“Lilly will further evaluate this data prior to determining next steps for the entire LY2886721 clinical development program,” the Indianapolis-based company said.

The drug was in a category called beta secretase, or BACE, inhibitors. Merck & Co. is developing a drug in the same class. The therapies help prevent the formation of plaque tangles in the brain called beta amyloid, which is associated with Alzheimer’s.

The mechanism differs from that of a failed experimental therapy from Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer Inc., and one from Lilly that is still in development. Those drugs are designed to clear beta amyloid from the brain by binding directly to the protein.

Lilly said it didn’t think the abnormal liver results were a broad effect of BACE inhibitors as a class and plans to continue looking at the mechanism as an Alzheimer’s treatment. The company has informed doctors running the trial.

More than 5 million Americans have Alzheimer’s, according to the Alzheimer’s Association, a disease advocacy group. The neurodegenerative disease is the sixth-leading cause of death in the U.S., according to the association’s website. There is no approved cure for Alzheimer’s on the 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. Looking at the two companies - in spite of their relative size to one another -- Ricker's image is (by all accounts) pretty solid and reputable. Their locations are clean, employees are friendly and the products they offer are reasonably priced. By contrast, BP locations are all over the place and their reputation is poor, especially when you consider this is the same "company" whose disastrous oil spill and their response was nothing short of irresponsible should tell you a lot. The fact you also have people who are experienced in franchising saying their system/strategy is flawed is a good indication that another "spill" has occurred and it's the AM-PM/Ricker's customers/company that are having to deal with it.

  2. Daniel Lilly - Glad to hear about your points and miles. Enjoy Wisconsin and Illinois. You don't care one whit about financial discipline, which is why you will blast the "GOP". Classic liberalism.

  3. Isn't the real reason the terrain? The planners under-estimated the undulating terrain, sink holes, karst features, etc. This portion of the route was flawed from the beginning.

  4. You thought no Indy was bad, how's no fans working out for you? THe IRl No direct competition and still no fans. Hey George Family, spend another billion dollars, that will fix it.

  5. I live downtown Indy and had to be in downtown Chicago for a meeting. In other words, I am the target demographic for this train. It leaves at 6:00-- early but doable. Then I saw it takes 5+ hours. No way. I drove. I'm sure I paid 3 to 5 times as much once you factor in gas, parking, and tolls, but it was reimbursed so not a factor for me. Any business traveler is going to take the option that gets there quickly and reliably... and leisure travelers are going to take the option that has a good schedule and promotional prices (i.e., Megabus). Indy to Chicago is the right distance (too short to fly but takes several hours to drive) that this train could be extremely successful even without subsidies, if they could figure out how to have several frequencies (at least 3x/day) and make the trip in a reasonable amount of time. For those who have never lived on the east coast-- Amtrak is the #1 choice for NY-DC and NY-Boston. They have the Acela service, it runs almost every hour, and it takes you from downtown to downtown. It beats driving and flying hands down. It is too bad that we cannot build something like this in the midwest, at least to connect the bigger cities.

ADVERTISEMENT