IBJNews

Lilly stops development on cancer drug after failed study

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co. halted development of an experimental cancer drug after the medicine failed to lengthen survival for certain lymphoma patients in a study.

The decision will result in a charge of $30 million in the second quarter, Indianapolis-based Lilly said in a statement Friday. The drug, enzastaurin, was in the most advanced stage of testing and had been expected to generate $260 million in annual sales by 2018, according to Mark Schoenebaum, an analyst with ISI Group.

Lilly said in April it was expecting to seek U.S. regulatory approval this year for the drug to prevent the relapse of diffuse large b-cell lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. The setback leaves Lilly with four treatments it may be able to bring to market next year. The company needs new drugs to help offset the loss of patent protection later this year on its top-selling product, Cymbalta for depression.

“We are disappointed in the results that we’re announcing today,” said Richard Gaynor, vice president of product development and medical affairs for Lilly’s cancer unit, in the statement. “However, our oncology pipeline is still one of the most robust across the industry.”

Lilly shares were up 20 cents early Friday, to $54.76 each. The stock had gained 32 percent in the 12 months through Thursday.
 

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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT