Lilly says its once-daily insulin tops competitor's drug

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly & Co. said its experimental insulin helped diabetic patients more than Sanofi’s biggest product in studies that also raised some safety risks.

Lilly’s once-a-day insulin injection was better than Sanofi’s Lantus in controlling patients’ blood sugar, a measure of how well a patients’ diabetes is under control.

Indianapolis-based Lilly said it will file for U.S. approval to sell the drug in the first quarter of next year.

The three studies showed increases in rates of liver enzymes, a potential sign of toxicity, and lower rates of good, or HDL, cholesterol, safety issues that may give Lilly a hard time when selling the drug, said Mark Schoenebaum, an analyst with ISI Group LLC. U.S. regulators may also require another trial before they will grant approval, he said.

“We are reasonably bearish on this molecule due to potential toxicity concerns,” Schoenebaum wrote in an e-mail. Annual sales of the drug may be about $600 million by 2020 if it is approved, he said.

Lantus generated $7.59 billion for Paris-based Sanofi last year. The medicine’s sales are projected by analysts to increase to at least $10 billion in 2016, according to estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

Lilly rose were up 18 cents Monday morning, to $59.51. Sanofi rose 1.5 percent.

Lilly has made an aggressive push to expand its diabetes products, with drugs in every class of therapy for what it calls a full suite of offerings for doctors, health insurers and governments.

In three trials including 3,373 patients, Lilly’s insulin was superior to Lantus in controlling blood sugar. It was tested in patients who’d never used an insulin before, those switching over from another insulin, and in combination with a shorter-acting insulin meant to control blood sugar after meals.

Lilly’s drug “is the first basal insulin to demonstrate consistently superior HbA1c reduction versus insulin glargine in Phase III clinical trials,” Enrique Conterno, president of Lilly’s diabetes business, said in a statement announcing the trial results. Lilly will release full results of the trial, which is continuing, later this year.

Basal insulins are designed to be a baseline of blood sugar control. They’re often given with other medications to control elevated blood sugar after meals. The trials tested Lilly’s drug in combination with those drugs and on its own.

In the U.S., 25.8 million people have diabetes, about 8 percent of the population, according to the American Diabetes Association. The adult form of the disease is often driven by obesity, and is projected to grow as American waistlines continue to expand.


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. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.