IBJNews

Lilly's Alimta get favorable opinion for new use in Europe

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co., looking for every extra dollar it can get before watching its bestselling drug's patents expire next month, might get more sales out of its $2.2 billion-a-year lung cancer drug Alimta.

A committee at the European Medicines Agency issued a positive opinion for the use of Alimta as a "continuation" maintenance therapy, Lilly announced Monday. That makes market approval by the European Commission more likely.

Continuation maintenance approval could mean significantly more dollars for Lilly. It would allow doctors to treat lung cancer patients with Alimta during initial treatment and for numerous months afterward to keep the disease in check.

Alimta already was approved as a maintenance drug, but only for use after initial treatment of the disease with other drugs.

Receiving approval as a maintenance therapy, which Alimta won back in 2009, helped sales soar 66 percent since then. Alimta sales totaled $1.2 billion worldwide in the first half of 2011.

Alimta already has been growing rapidly in foreign markets, with sales rising more than 17 percent from the first half of 2010 to the first half of this year.

According to Lilly, no chemotherapy is currently approved as a continuation maintenance drug.

"Lung cancer is one of the most difficult cancers to treat, and new therapy options are much needed," said Dr. Allen Melemed, Lilly’s senior medical director for Alimta.

Alimta is designed to treat patients with non-small cell lung cancer who have a certain tumor type called nonsquamous. The opinion of the committee at the European Medicine Agency was based on a clinical trial, the results of which were presented publicly in June. The trial treated patients with a combination of Alimta and cisplatin, a standard chemotherapy for lung cancer, and then those who did not improve received maintenance doses of Alimta.

Lilly’s U.S. and European patents on its bestseller Zyprexa will expire in October, allowing cheaper generic copies to sap most of the antipsychotic’s $5 billion per year in sales.

Zyprexa will be the second of five Lilly blockbusters to lose patent protection between 2010 and 2014, and the company has not been able to launch new drugs with strong enough sales to replace that revenue.

So Lilly leaders have looked to winning extra indications for its existing drugs, such as Alimta, while also growing its businesses in animal health and emerging markets. It hopes those efforts produce enough revenue to give its research and development team time to launch new drugs.

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. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

  2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

  3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

  4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

  5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.

ADVERTISEMENT