The Big Winner in the Vytorin Debacle? It Might be Lilly

Steve Nissen's latest star turn, advising doctors everywhere to stop using Vytorin until there is better evidence it improves health outcomes, is surely going to be a boon for Pfizer and AstraZeneca.

Those companies' good old fashioned statins (Lipitor and Crestor, respectively) will surely pick up a bit of ground in the cholesterol market.

But that is sure to come at a price: If (when?) Congress holds hearings on the Great Cholesterol Coverup (we’re guessing at the hearing topic here), you can bet everyone in the cholesterol class will take some lumps for their aggressive marketing. It won’t help that the Energy & Commerce Committee which is investigating Vytorin is also investigating Pfizer’s Lipitor DTC campaign.

Here's another company that stands to gain: Eli Lilly & Co.

Why? Because the emergence of Steve Nissen as perhaps the most visible critic of pharmaceutical industry practices and products means that people are sure to pay even more attention when he says a drug company did things right.

Here is what Nissen had to say about Lilly's anticlotting drug prasugrel during our FDA/CMS Summit for Biopharma Executives. "The company did a courageous trial against an active comparator and they informed the medical community: What were the benefits, what were the risks, and a reasonable and sensible person can look at that and say I get it.”

"The results with prasugrel were a very good result," Nissen said. "The drug prevented more myocardial infarctions than the bleeding episodes it caused. I think the drug is an advance."

Nissen said more or less the same thing to the New York Times when the pivotal trial results on prasugrel were published, and he has since given more interviews underscoring his belief that the drug should be approved by FDA as quickly as possible.

That, to put it mildly, would be wonderful news for Lilly. The company lost about 15% of its value during the fourth quarter as Wall Street fretted about the mixed data. (The RPM Report has just published more on this topic on our website. You have to be a subscriber to The RPM Report to read our complete analysis, or sign up for a 30-day free trial to get a taste of what you are missing.)

Read More

Prasugrel: Lilly Tries to Stop the Bleeding (Part 2)

The speculation about the prospects for Lilly’s clot prevention drug prasugrel continues.

The latest turn has been a rebound for Lilly, prompted at least in part by a November 28 note by Credit Suisse analyst Catherine Arnold. The note reports some interesting survey data on projected use of prasugrel by cardiologists. What Arnold heard in the responses is further support for her view that the drug will indeed be a significant new product for Lilly, with peak sales in the range of $2.5 billion.

Lilly shares have been on a rollercoaster ride for six weeks now surrounding release of the pivotal trial data for prasugrel. Unfortunately for Lilly, most of the ride has been downhill. (We wrote about Lilly CEO Sidney Taurel’s response to the media and investor frenzy surrounding prasugrel last week.)

For now, many analysts remain concerned about an increased risk of major bleeding associated with the drug. In today’s world, they fret that even a demonstration of superior efficacy vesus the market leader, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi Aventis’ clopidogrel (Plavix), isn’t enough to overcome any hint of a safety risk.

The pivotal trial data undeniably limit the market for prasugrel (approximately 20% of the patients enrolled in the trial were in one of three subgroups Lilly says shouldn’t get the drug). Some analysts expect that the impact will be greater than that, with doctors choosing the more conservative approach of using Plavix first as much as possible. And the biggest fear of all is that FDA simply won’t approve the drug.

Arnold, clearly, is in the more bullish camp. In her view, investors have over-reacted to the safety issue. Even with limitations on the patient population, prasugrel only needs to capture about a 25% share of the current market for Plavix to generate $2.5 billion in peak revenues.

That type of market share is very achievable, Arnold says. The survey suggests that cardiologists will use prasugrel in more than a third of their PCI patients.

“Surprisingly, the respondents were also very likely to use prasugrel in patients with coronary artery disease who are being medically managed (patients with unstable angina or a recent MI who do not undergo PCI) and patients with established peripheral arterial disease,” Arnold reports. “These are large segments of the antiplatelet market where there is no data to support the use of prasugrel currently but, based on these results and other research we have conducted, we think prasugrel will generate modest off-label use.”

That sure sounds like good news for Lilly. But is it?

The willingness of cardiologists to shrug off the safety questions about prasugrel may be perfectly justified medically, and it would certainly be a great boost for the drug commercially. But it is also exactly the reason why FDA has been so tough on NDAs—and why Congress has given the agency new drug safety tools to control the use of new drugs after approval.

To us, the path for approval of prasugrel seems clear. First, Lilly needs to convince FDA that the subpopulations it has identified where the drug should and should not be used are indeed supported by the data. Lilly says the risk/benefit profile is not supported for the drug in patients over 75 years of age, patients who weigh less than 60 kg, and patients with a prior history of stroke or transient ischemic attack. If those patients are excluded from treatment, the relatively benefits of prasugrel look even better compared to Plavix.

Second, and most important, Lilly will need to convince FDA that the drug will in fact only be used by the subpopulations for which it is appropriate. In that case, the perception that cardiologists are eager to use the drug more broadly actually hurts—rather than considering the risk benefit profile if only the right patients use it, FDA has to consider the risk benefit profile if the wrong patients use it.

FDA’s decision on prasugrel will almost certainly come down to Lilly’s ability to present a credible risk management plan that will give FDA the confidence to say yes to the drug. In that context, the survey data showing a readiness for cardiologists to use prasugrel off-label is an obstacle, not an opportunity.

Read More

Prasugrel: Lilly Tries to Stop the Bleeding (Part 1)

We were a bit taken aback by Lilly CEO Sidney Taurel’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week recounting the damage done by the frenzy of speculation about the prospects for the platelet aggregation inhibitor prasugrel.

Taurel takes financial journalists to task for trading in “leaks and rumors where scientific data are concerned” and calling on “would-be pundits” who “have not had firsthand exposure to the scientific results or specialized knowledge under discussion” to “qualify your comments if you must make them at all.”

Its not that we disagree with Taurel. Like most self-respecting journalists, we are only too happy to join in any critique of the sloppy practices of our competitors (since we of course are the exception that proves the rule, right?).

No, what took us aback about the piece was its premise: the almost quaint notion that pharmaceutical companies can somehow put the genie back in the bottle and have the final say in when or how information about their products—even unapproved products like prasugrel—will be disseminated to the public.

Taurel’s argument, in effect, is that journalists, analysts and investors should have waited patiently for the release of the pivotal trial data on prasugrel (the TRITON study) at the American Heart Association meeting November 4, rather than engaging in a frenzy of speculation based on news that Lilly had suspended two other trials of the drug. Lilly decided to report that data there, and in a companion piece published by The New England Journal of Medicine.

Lilly, of course, couldn’t release the data early because it committed to an embargo prior to the AHA presentation. “Such guarantees of exclusivity are not only common, but also appropriate, in focusing expert attention on important research,” Taurel writes. “A definitive source and a ‘zero hour’ of first-hand disclosure for complex scientific data help to limit misinformation.”

Ah, the good old days. Things used to work that way for sure. But in the era of the internet, clinical trial registries, managed care claims databases, FDA drug safety newsletters, and emerging active surveillance systems, it is simply no longer possible for drug sponsors to hope to control the information flow about their products. (Not too mention the unbelievable proliferation of would-be pundits known as bloggers.)

In this case, Taurel laments, “10 days before our ‘zero hour,’ word leaked out, causing us to confirm that the two prasugrel trials had been suspended, although our promises to NEJM and AHA prevented us from explaining why.”

The truth, as Taurel explains, was that prasugrel performed very well in the pivotal trial, but that there were “three small subgroups of patients” in whom a risk of excessive bleeding appeared to outweigh the benefits. “Based on the small chance that patients in the three identified subgroups might be given prasugrel and experience serious bleeding, we advised our researchers to suspend the two trials pending a review,” Taurel writes.

But the damage was done. “The media entered a feeding frenzy, catered by commentators on Wall Street and elsewhere who speculated that prasugrel posed broad risks and had probably failed its major trial. Our stock began its trip south and, more seriously, some doctors and patients were left with false impressions.” Lilly’s shares recovered somewhat after the data were finally reported on November 4.

We might quibble a bit with choosing prasugrel as the case to make this argument—claims of patient harm seem overdone here when we are talking about a drug not yet approved by FDA. Commercial harm, yes. Harm to Lilly’s investors, yes. But it is a bit of stretch to say patients were harmed.

But still, Taurel is right about the potential for media feeding frenzies to cause tremendous harm. Its happened before, for sure. Maybe Avandia is an example, or even Baychol—cases where coverage of an unexpected side effect led many patients to discontinue treatment on their own, leaving at least the possibility that more harm was done by untreated diabetes or high cholesterol than by the adverse events in question.

Even so, Taurel sounds a bit like Lear raging against the storm. We understand his concern, but it is hard to imagine any way he or any other industry CEO can reverse the winds.

We aren’t the only ones who think that. Plenty of smart people in government and industry are talking about the revolutionary changes in information flow about medicine—including a whole bunch of executives at Lilly. In fact, though this is impossible to handicap, we would be willing to bet that Lilly is at the forefront of recognizing and adapting to a world where the pharmaceutical company sponsor is no longer at the center of the information flow about drug products.

We have heard several Lilly executives speak publicly and privately on this very theme. During a panel discussion on clinical trial policy at the University of North Carolina in February, one Lilly executive talked about the move towards active surveillance as potentially engendering a “Wikipharmacy” model in which product use information is no longer generated by FDA and the sponsor in labeling negotiations, but rather by a global community of users exchanging information on real-world experiences with the drug.

And Taurel himself has talked about it. During a policy address at the Cleveland Clinic early this year, Taurel focused on the revolutionary potential of healthcare IT advances. He even talked about the importance—and benefits—of public access to data once jealously guarded by manufacturers.

“For businesses that generate health data and new knowledge, it’s time to learn the benefits of openness," Taurel said in Cleveland. He went on:

"We need to open our minds to the notion that electronic outcomes data – once the privacy of individual patients is protected – represent a legitimate ‘commons,’ a resource to which access should in most cases be widespread and easy.”

“That’s not to ignore the fact that great effort and expense goes into collecting many types of health information. Certainly at Lilly, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on clinical trials. But the key insight in our situation, and I think it applies quite broadly, is that unlike most other assets, health information actually becomes more valuable the more it is used, studied, and applied. It does not depreciate.”

So what gives with the Journal editorial? Did Lilly decide that openness is wrong? Hardly. Taurel even repeats his argument that openness is critical for industry: “Trust hinges on our openness in sharing everything we know about who should use our products—along with when, how and at what dose—and who should not.”

What we are really seeing here is not a vain attempt by a pharma company to turn back the storm, but an example of one way to try to advance against the wind.

The frenzy around prasugrel hurt Lilly, but it also provided an opportunity for the CEO to talk about the product in a prominent forum. The fact is that Lilly (and its partner, Daiichi Sankyo) plan to submit a new drug application based on TRITON to FDA before the end of the year. Anything Lilly can do to shape the climate for that review is critical.

When you look at it that way, maybe the most important line in the editorial is the sentence at the end of the fifth paragraph, citing a quote from the Journal’s earlier reporting on prasugrel: “If you can't get a drug on the market with that kind of data, we should stop developing drugs.” That is a message not just for business and science reporters, but for FDA reviewers as well.

So will Lilly get this drug on the market with this kind of data? Coming Monday, one would-be pundit will share his thoughts on what it will take to make that happen.

Read More