IBJNews

Lilly letting U.S. researchers test failed compounds for new uses

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

More than 20 compounds that Eli Lilly and Co., Pfizer Inc. and AstraZeneca Plc failed to turn into drugs will be tested by U.S.-sponsored scientists in a $20 million program to see if they’ll work against ailments they weren’t aimed at previously.

If they do, the time to market will be shorter and the drugmakers, who retain ownership of the compounds, will share profits with the researchers, who keep intellectual property rights. Traditionally, companies spend about $2 billion and take 14 years to develop drugs, a so-called “valley-of-death” commitment that’s stalled progress as drugmakers move cautiously in deciding which illness to target.

The joint program, a first for the National Institutes of Health, is designed to lessen their risk, funded by $575 million in the United State's fiscal 2013 budget. The agency cited the HIV treatment AZT, created from failed attempts to treat cancer, in explaining the partnership.

“We need to generate more of these success stories in a more systematic manner,” NIH director Francis Collins said during a news conference announcing the agreements..

The compounds by Indianapolis-based Lilly, New York-based Pfizer and London-based AstraZeneca will make available have already been shown to be safe in humans.

“For us, there is just benefits, in a way,” said Jan Lundberg, executive vice president for science and technology at Lilly.

Drugmakers will have to provide the compounds to researchers, which may requiring manufacturing more of the substances, Lundberg said.

The companies also face costs for maintaining patents on the compounds and for gathering and transmitting clinical data to scientists, said Don Frail, vice president for science and new opportunities at London-based AstraZeneca.

“There’s not a shelf of discontinued compounds that you can just pull one off and give to somebody,” Frail said. Clinical supplies alone, should the compounds enter human trials, may cost as much as $1 million, he said.

Collins said he is hopeful the work will lead to new treatments for diseases of the central nervous system, which have proved so difficult to attack that drug companies are dissuaded from investing in them.

Rod Mackenzie, a senior vice president at Pfizer, said neurological diseases are “one of the great health crises we face across the globe.”

“We need to do better there,” he said.

Should the drugs prove effective against a new disease, the companies will have the option to develop them into a marketed product, the agency said. Taxpayers would get a financial benefit only if an NIH scientist is a researcher on one of the compounds. Then royalties would flow back to the U.S. agency.

“Americans are eagerly awaiting the next generation of cures and treatments to help them live longer and healthier lives,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, in a statement. “To accelerate our nation’s therapeutic development process, it is essential that we forge strong, innovative and strategic partnerships across government, academia and industry.”

The bottom-line benefit for the public is societal, Collins said. Diseases that don’t have treatments now may get one, he said.The drugmakers will give researchers access to the chemicals and related data, the NIH said in a statement.
 

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. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT