Lilly suspends late-stage trial for melanoma drug

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co. suspended a late-stage clinical trial of a medicine for skin-cancer patients after 12 patients in the study died.

The deaths, among the 300 patients in the study, “may be treatment-related,” said Amy Sousa, a Lilly spokeswoman, in a telephone interview Monday. Lilly was testing the drug, tasisulam, as a medication for patients whose skin cancer had spread and who didn’t benefit from earlier treatment, the Indianapolis-based company said in a prepared statement.

Lilly has struggled to get new products approved before patents expire on older medicines, led by the antipsychotic treatment Zyprexa. Two setbacks in October for diabetes products under development spurred analysts to suggest Lilly look for acquisitions to bolster revenue.

“We are thoroughly reviewing the clinical trial data to understand what modifications to the study protocol or dosing would be needed to improve patient safety on this trial,” Richard Gaynor, Lilly’s vice president of oncology product development and medical affairs, said in the statement.

No new or existing patients will be given the drug while the company evaluates safety data for the trial, which is spread across 18 countries. Studies will continue in breast, ovarian, and renal cancers and against soft-tissue sarcoma, the company said. Tasisulam works by killing cancer cells and also by preventing them from replicating, the company has said.

About 68,130 new cases of melanoma, or skin cancer, were diagnosed this year in the United States, and about 8,700 people died from the disease, according to the National Cancer Institute, based in Bethesda, Md.

Lilly shares declined less than 1 percent in extended trading after dropping 1 cent, to $34.97 each at the markets close Monday.



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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.