Lilly needs more R&D successes to counter declining ROI on new drugs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co.’s success at moving an experimental migraine medicine forward by using outside companies and capital is good news since the fundamental business of Big Pharma drug development is in bad shape.

From 2010 through 2013, the total cost of bringing one new drug to market rose 18 percent to $1.3 billion, according to a recent Deloitte report on the return on investment from research and development at the 12 largest pharmaceutical companies, including Lilly.

But during the same period, the average peak sales predicted for experimental drugs fell a whopping 43 percent, to just $466 million per year. Drugs are generating less in revenue as health insurance plans and state-run health programs push generic drugs, take longer to grant reimbursement for new drugs and demand clear patient benefit before paying premium prices.

Since drugs stay on the market for multiple years, that still means pharma R&D is predicted to generate returns of 4.8 percent. But that’s a far cry from the 10.5 percent predicted in 2010, and the returns the industry enjoyed in prior decades.

Even though the big pharma companies brought 105 new drugs to market in the past four years, Julian Remnant, head of Deloitte’s European R&D practice, said “they are failing to match this level of performance in other drivers of R&D economics, for example reducing the cost of success and boosting the rate of innovation.”

But Lilly’s migraine medicine, called LY2951742, is an example of how Lilly is trying to do both.

In February 2011, Lilly created what it called its “Mirror Portfolio,” which sought to push 45 to 60 additional drugs into human testing—as much as doubling the size of Lilly’s in-house portfolio. Lilly renamed the effort its Capital Funds Portfolio, which currently includes nine drugs, including the migraine medicine.

Lilly aimed to accomplish the strategy by licensing the drugs out to other pharmaceutical companies—many of them virtual companies that contract with third-party firms to conduct testing—and to fund the work with investments from outside venture capital firms. Lilly committed to invest up to 20 percent of the capital in the participating venture capital funds.

The “proof of concept” testing aims to determine whether a drug appears to do what it was designed to do. The migraine medicine is designed to bind to the calcitonin gene-related peptide, a protein in the brain that has been shown to cause inflammation, dilation of blood vessels and pain signaling in human brains—all factors that can cause migraine headaches.

Lilly licensed the migraine drug to Massachusetts-based Arteaus Therapeutics, which was created by an $18 million investment from venture capital firms OrbiMed and Atlas Venture.

So the Capital Funds Portfolio allows Lilly to use other people and other people’s money to test a higher number of drugs.

If a drug’s basic mechanism works, as is apparently the case with the migraine medicine, Lilly can buy the drug back and focus its resources on bringing it to market.

If not, Lilly has avoided the really expensive tests—Phase 3 trials involving hundreds or even thousands of patients.

Late-stage failures—which have beset Lilly repeatedly in recent years—cost the 12 largest pharma companies $243 billion over the past four years, according to the Deloitte report.

“Through this strategy, independent investment firms and portfolio companies provide a unique way to access [new drugs], share risks, and expand funding to develop molecules, such as the CGRP antibody, to help speed the delivery of timely valued medicines to patients who are waiting,” Jan M. Lundberg, president of Lilly Research Laboratories, the R&D arm of Lilly, said in a statement.


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am also a "vet" of several Cirque shows and this one left me flat. It didn't have the amount of acrobatic stunts as the others that I have seen. I am still glad that I went to it and look forward to the next one but I put Varekai as my least favorite.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.