Struggling Lilly turns to antidepressant Cymbalta for lift

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Greg Andrews

Eli Lilly and Co.’s antidepressant Cymbalta always has been overshadowed by Zyprexa, whose annual sales top $5 billion—far more than any other drug in the company’s 134-year history.

So you might be surprised to learn that Cymbalta, the company’s No. 2 seller, racked up $3.5 billion in sales last year, and some analysts say it may approach $5 billion before generic competition arrives in the summer of 2013.

Eking every penny possible out of Cymbalta has emerged as a key part of Lilly’s strategy to weather a blizzard of patent expirations that will begin in late 2011 and continue through 2014. The first is a doozy, the antipsychotic Zyprexa, which loses protection this October.

Company executives have dubbed the daunting span “Years YZ.” The goal, in short, is to prevent revenue from falling off a cliff before promising compounds in the R&D pipeline would begin to hit the market mid-decade.

Lechleiter Lechleiter

So far, so good for Cymbalta. In the fourth quarter of 2010, sales spiked 18 percent, to $982 million, in part because of a U.S. price increase.

Company officials expect more good news in 2011 thanks to recent approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to market Cymbalta for chronic pain. In addition to depression, Cymbalta already had approvals for diabetic nerve pain, fibromyalgia and anxiety.

“It’s obviously a very important new indication for us for a molecule that now has five or six approved indications in different countries around the world,” Lilly CEO John Lechleiter told analysts on a Jan. 27 conference call.

“Cymbalta … is going to be a very important growth driver for us in the beginning of this YZ period.”

The drug debuted in 2004, four years after a federal appeals court stripped Prozac of its patent protection. Prozac sales peaked in 2000 at $2.6 billion—a threshold Cymbalta blew past in 2009.

The drug’s share of the U.S. antidepressant-prescription market has held steady at about 10 percent since 2008, despite increasing generic competition, according to Deutsche Bank Securities. But for years, the drug hasn’t been prescribed just for depression. FDA data released last summer found that as much as two-thirds of Cymbalta’s use already was off label for the treatment of pain.

Bernstein Research projects Cymbalta sales will increase 15 percent this year and another 9 percent in 2012, reaching $4.4 billion. The firm projects the drug will account for nearly 20 percent of Lilly’s 2012 sales.

But like everything involving Lilly these days, there are plenty of risks. For starters, a lawsuit challenging Cymbalta’s patent protection is scheduled for trial this June. Analysts think Lilly will prevail, but there are no guarantees.

Analysts say the company can’t afford to stumble with Cymbalta at a time Zyprexa sales are likely to go into a free fall. BMO Capital Markets projects Zyprexa sales will fall 12 percent this year, to $4.4 billion, before plunging to $1.5 billion in 2016. Any disappointment with Cymbalta could cause Lilly shares, which are languishing around $35.50, to fall further.

“Lilly’s sales are increasingly becoming dependent on Cymbalta going forward, and any weakness in [prescription] trends may negatively impact the stock’s ability to reach our target price” of $38, Citigroup Global Markets analyst John Boris said in a report.

Analysts expect generics to gobble up Cymbalta sales quickly once competition arrives in the second half of 2013. J.P. Morgan estimates that in 2015 sales will slip below $1 billion.

If all goes well, Lilly will have some new drugs picking up the slack by then. BMO Capital Markets estimates the company’s sales that year will approach $25 billion, with nearly one-quarter from products that aren’t yet on the market.

Many of Lilly’s peers are bracing for similar transitions, as patent expirations sweep through the industry. But the challenges are most daunting at Lilly, Goldman Sachs said in a report reiterating its “sell” rating on Lilly shares.

“We maintain our view that LLY remains the most structurally challenged company in a sector facing serious decline,” Goldman Sachs analyst Jami Rubin said in the report.

Endowment sticks with stock

The Lilly Endowment Inc. continues to stand by the company, and hasn’t sold a single one of its 134 million shares since late 2008, regulatory filings show.

The foundation, founded with gifts of Lilly stock, began diversifying in 2006 but put sales on hold after the company’s swoon deepened. The stock is off about 68 percent from its 2000 peak.

Lilly’s hefty quarterly dividend—49 cents a share—takes away some of the sting. The endowment received $262 million in dividends in 2010.•


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. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

  2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

  3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

  4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

  5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.