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. Great article and post scripts by Mike L (Great addition to IBJ BTW). Bobby's stubborn as a mule, and doubt if he ever comes back to IU. But the love he would receive would be enormous. Hope he shows some time, but not counting on it.

  2. When the Indiana GOP was going around the State selling the Voucher bill they were promising people that the vouchers would only be for public charter schools. They lied. As usual.

  3. I am Mr. Morris Ray, a Legitimate And a Reputable money Lender. We lend funds out to individuals in need of financial assistance, we give loan to people that have a bad credit or in need of money to pay bills, to invest on business. Have you been looking for loan? you have not to worry, because you are in the right place i offer loan at low interest rate of 2% so if you are in need of a loan i want you to just contact me via this email Address: morris_ray123@outlook.com

  4. Jim, your "misleading" numbers comment is spot on. This is the spin these posers are putting on it. News flash, fans: these guys lie. They are not publicly traded so no one holds them accountable for anything they say. The TV numbers are so miniscule to begin with any "increase" produces double digit "growth" numbers. It's ridiculous to think that anything these guys have done has awakened the marketplace. What have they done? Consolidate the season so they run more races on consecutive weekends? And this creates "momentum." Is that the same momentum you enjoy when you don't race between August and March? Keep in mind that you are running teams who barely make ends meet ragged over the summer to accomplish this brilliant strategy of avoiding the NFL while you run your season finale at midnight on the East Coast. But I should not obfuscate my own point: any "ratings increase" is exactly what Jim points to - the increased availability of NBC Sports in households. Look fans, I love the sport to but these posers are running it off a cliff. Miles wants to declare victory and then run for Mayor. I could go on and on but bottom line for God's sake don't believe a word they say. Note to Anthony - try doing just a little research instead of reporting what these pretenders say and then offering an "opinion" no more informed than the average fan.

  5. If he's finally planning to do the right thing and resign, why not do it before the election? Waiting until after means what - s special election at tax payer expense? Appointment (by whom?) thus robbing the voters of their chance to choose? Does he accrue some additional financial advantage to waiting, like extra pension payments? What's in it for him? That's the question that needs to be asked.