Seeking Alpha
We cover over 5K calls/quarter
Profile| Send Message|
( followers)  

Call Start: 13:40

Call End: 14:14

Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE:LLY)

Goldman Sachs Healthcare Conference

June 11, 2014 1:40 PM ET

Executives

David Ricks - President and SVP, Lilly Bio-Medicines

Analysts

Jami Rubin - Goldman Sachs

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

Good morning everyone, and this is -- which session is this, this is fourth or fifth session -- I’m losing track.

Unidentified Company Representative

No, no it’s the first one.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

I’m losing track. But anyway, I’m delighted to have David Ricks from Lilly. Dave was with us last year and I have to say this, I’m very impressed by the way you think, the way you talk, the way you think about the business and this is a part of the Lilly story, the biomedical story that at least recently has gotten a lot less visibility. But it’s actually a really exciting part of the story. So it’s great to have you. But just as a way of brief introduction, Dave Ricks is the business unit leader of Lilly’s Biomedicines Group. And this includes neuroscience, cardiovascular, urology, osteoporosis, and autoimmune diseases and in the U.S., Japan and Europe.

Dave is also a member of the executive committee and responsible for Lilly’s pricing and reimbursement and access functions, so a whole lot of different responsibilities at the company. So again thank you for joining us. Why don’t you just since you are responsible for so many areas but not every area, can you remind us of the corporate structure of Lilly, where you fit in? You seem to be responsible for basically everything other than diabetes and oncology, how do we think about the structure and where you fit in?

David Ricks

Right, thanks, Jamie it’s a pleasure to be here and thanks for attending today. So in 2009 as we went into this patent expiry window the company faced, we reorganize the business into five groups, to try to bring focus on some areas we thought could come sooner and help us grow out of that period faster. And those five groups were emerging markets in animal health which had in-market products opportunities, and in oncology and diabetes which to put a focus on those businesses to drive growth coming out of YZ, this patent window. Everything else sort of landed with our group which in the short-term left us with a big responsibility to deliver on the in-markets products, and as we exit the YZ period and have really hit the minimums for the most part that we laid out, I think that our group has done a nice job with that.

We have also done a lot of remodeling of how we deploy in-market, really moving out of a lot of primary care capacity as Cymbalta expired in particular, which is driving savings through the P&L. And then we’re really the next wave of innovation beyond what you’re seeing today and a lot of you want to talk about in diabetes and oncology, those are very exciting things. Our data readouts are really beginning in the second half of this year with the autoimmune, or immunology portfolio and then later into ’16 with some bigger bets, but potentially interesting things in Alzheimer’s and cardiovascular.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

So today, what percentage of your business does come from the biomedicines or biological sales? And where do you expect us -- what’s your goal in the next five years where do you expect this to go?

David Ricks

Yes so our business unit, last year was a little less than half of the company revenue. We had lost a lot of…

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

So that includes the old products, right?

David Ricks

Absolutely right, yes, going forward.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

Okay. My question is, when you look at your pipeline and your portfolio what percentage of your sales do you expect will come from biologicals?

David Ricks

Yes, absolutely so we have currently six products in Phase 3, four of which are biologics. If I look back in our pipeline Phase 2 and Phase 1, I would say it is predominantly biologics, that’s the name of our group. We have been very successful in the last 5-7 years in our early Phase research in -- targeting new targets with monoclonal antibodies, and other biologic mechanisms and that’s really making the bulk of our growth story going forward, starting with the autoimmune products which we will hear about later this year.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

When we talk about the pipeline for which you are responsible, I just want to talk about sort of bigger picture and what’s going on with M&A et cetera. This year there has been, and not just this year, but the last few years, there’s just been a lot of attention on M&A activity and breakups and Pharma, with many of your peers building up areas of strength while divesting non-core assets. Some have gone as far as breaking up their businesses like Abbott, Navidea and others. Lilly has seen at least from what I can see, we have seen less structural change, that the business footprint is similar today as it was five years ago, 10 years ago, although animal health is a bigger part of that. Do you see the company following the same path as your peers or do you think that structure is the right structure for the future of the business?

David Ricks

Right, yes, great, obviously that’s a hot topic these days. I think first of all, the first thing for investors to know, I think we started this period simpler than almost anybody else for our size and well other kind of mid-majors, like Bristol-Myers et cetera have had parts to spinoff. We have sort of always been a human pharma RX and animal health business, that hasn’t change since the mid-90s when we spun out guidance. We kind of missed the wave of diversifying and so now there’s less of that, so a more dramatic swapping and spinning out to do in our mind. I do think that we like the animal health business, that’s a question that comes up a lot in terms of fit within Lilly, because we find tremendous synergies in both R&D and commercially. We think we needed to be at scale, that’s what the Novartis deal was about it is getting to be number two. And we think we can grow much faster in the industry from that position. So we like that I am not aware of plans to look at that although we do evaluate that just from a discipline perspective strategically every few years.

Within human pharma, I think we’re open to simplification and rationalization and moving to spaces we think will be more attractive through time we’ve made some big bets in oncology and diabetes which appear to be paying off so we’re highly committed to those spaces. Our history in neuroscience as you mentioned at the beginning is changing out of psych into neurodegeneration and pain so from a research perspective we are really working hard now to trim and to focus ourselves where we can be best in the world. And in the commercial engine will follow that. So are we open to single asset or groups of assets transactions to simplify the business I think we would be they have to make economic sense to us and allow us to get better in those core areas that we are focusing on in human health.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

I mean your business unit in particular has a number of mature in or off patent products some of your peers are talking about selling their legacy brands. Would you consider spinning out or selling those assets to another company?

David Ricks

I think for the right offer for most of them, yes. So I think they represent less strategic sources of cash but you need to sell them -- you need to find some arbitrage in between our value and someone else’s. So certainly that’s something we look at all the time we have discussions on that frequently and if the transaction came forward that was creating value for shareholders we would not hesitate on that.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

I mean that…

David Ricks

And we’re doing other things too like you may have read the Sanofi deal on the OTC switch plans for Cialis which is a option for us basically to extend value beyond the normal patent life it’s not in our capability set we didn’t ever think about okay well let’s go ahead and build out or acquire a consumer healthcare company to do that through a partnership we can also keep ourselves simple tapping the value.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

Lilly hasn’t done a large therapeutics deal since ImClone six years ago a mega -- larger size deal recognizing that you just did a deal in animal health what do you sense is the company’s appetite to do therapeutic type deals to build out some of the areas that you see as growth opportunities?

David Ricks

Pretty high, I think we’re particularly interested in that single-digit billions and below space both because we think we can add more value when we’re doing some of the late stage developments as part of our group and so that would imply in earlier asset anyway or if it’s a more mature asset if it’s got a great fit with what we’re doing and we see value beyond market pricing I don’t think we would hesitate to act strategically we just did a $5 billion deal. So there is always a moment to pause and make sure you’ve got the capacity but we have a lot of balance sheet capacity and I think wouldn’t be afraid to use that for the right asset.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

Would you consider acquiring like for example a derm business to sell with derm products to sell with ixekizumab for psoriasis that’s a new area for Lilly and that might make sense to build out that area?

David Ricks

So ixekizumab is the IL-17 antibody for psoriasis we’ve looked at that question Jamie and I think at this point have said to ourselves probably not, that is drive not certainly by the idea of shying away from M&A where it can add value but more about what derm companies do. So if we look at the broad-based derm companies they have dozens of products and call on a universe that’s much-much larger than what the anti-TNS and still are used in today which is really much of a specialty pharma business works much more like other pharma sectors than broad derm. So it’s just not clear how they create value a lot of those companies are very interested in having an IL-17 it’s just not clear to me why we would be interested in collaborating with them. But per se we would always want to look at those things and just because we develop it particularly in my area where we may be entering new spaces where we don’t have a commercial presence doesn’t mean we have to sell it we can create value in other ways as well. So we’re open to collaborations in that particular case I wouldn’t expect to see a deal like you described although it could be other autoimmune possibilities for us.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

Just before we talk about specific products in your pipeline your pipeline seems to have a broad mix of specialty medicines and a few primary care products like the DPP inhibitor. What is the company’s long-term commitment to primary care medicines it seems that the industry is sort of walking away from primary care and embracing specialty biological drug. Do you share that vision for future R&D or is that are there still exciting areas in primary care?

David Ricks

Well, maybe a little bit of both I think the broad trend if you look at Lilly’s future portfolio makeup we’ll be more specialized than past and more biologic, that’s the medicines we’re working on and you can’t just change out wholesale of your pipeline. So for the next 10 years that’s the direction of travel. The glary inception of course is our diabetes business which is growing and primarily a primary care business. I don’t and I don’t think our management team thinks about that question in terms of should we be in primary care or specialty so much as are we working on assets with a good business case in a compelling value proposition. And if we are you can create through partnerships alliances or build yourself the commercial capabilities to go-to-market we’ve done it before and we would do it again and that would certainly bet the case with a drug like Evacetrapib clearly its primary care driven we may look at alliances and partnerships we may look at going alone in some markets but of course the thing is we think it’s a compelling asset. I mean that’s where we start that analysis. It just turns out I think that the way biology has moved and our own capabilities have moved, that biologics and specialty will play a greater increasing part of our mix.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

So your business is experiencing a large patent cliff this year with Cymbalta, I think lost in December of this, and you’ll face another cliff starting in 2017 not as large but at the end Strattera, Cialis. So clearly the pipeline is the critical part of the Lilly story. Can you walk us through your late stage Phase 3 assets? How these products restore growth to your top-line through this -- and through the second wave of the patent expirations. And I guess the question I have and you’re going to talk about your autoimmune, the drugs that target autoimmune diseases that it is a competitive class, you’re not alone and you’re competing with many established players. So I guess my question is in this area of autoimmune disorders, which are relatively new for Lilly. What gives you confidence that you can compete in this category? And obviously we’re going to talk about those specific drugs. But just high level, this is really new for you.

David Ricks

Right yes so we are -- yes as you have described we are really pivoting -- going to need to pivot away from Cialis and Strattera which are big brands in my group and into some new spaces, autoimmune data read outs will begin this fall and really into this time next year we’ll know all that data and have submissions underway. We like these assets because they are not TNFs, they are not going into a crowded class they are the next class which could provide the hope of better efficacy or cleaner safety or both. I think in the case of IL-17s in psoriasis there is a growing and interesting market. And this class clearly is working we’ve got two competitors that have read out data. We think we will all launch in a tightly clustered way. And then it’s really going to be about drug differentiation, and how we go-to-market.

And I think our IL-17 Ixekizumab goes to have some features particularly in the ease and flexibility of dosing that we think can be superior to the others in the class. Now that means that they’re on the Phase 3 but we’re studying up to in every three months regimens, which no one else is doing as well as every two weeks for a more intensive severe patient. In Tabalumab which is the lupus study, this is a little more binary Jamie, I think we’ll see efficacy that we think will make a compelling, really a disease changing therapy is what we’re going for. We don’t see that, we may need to make a different strategic decision about how to proceed, if we do, we’d be excited about that. That’s sort of a super orphan kind of condition in a way not much competition and some good pricing flexibility really need to work with the practitioners and the community to build practice of cure that can embrace a new modality of treatment.

DMIST is making progress but I don’t they managed to do that, and if we had a compelling profile we would invest to do that. So assuming may be, assuming that most competitors, we do have a competitor in Xeljanz which was launched and some would say with less than impressive early results. But we very much like Baricitinib as an oral JAK 1, 2 in partnership with the Insight. And from our pretty robust Phase 2 program we are impressed with the efficacy levels we can see not only in late disease but potentially in early disease. And the field is moving in our rate to treat joint destruction earlier to delay and to save the tissue as long as possible. And we believe that’s going to be more possible with an oral therapy, that’s extendable into the early phase of disease. So our program has actually two of the four Phase 3s are really in that early setting and that will be important data to watch for investors as it comes out, if can we extend that. I think the upside to that case.

We also have a fully powered Humira non-inferiority that is also our structure study, so one problem with Xeljanz I think is they didn’t have structure at the beginning, they didn’t have fully powered studies against the relevant TNF competitors. We plan to have that and sometimes it’s good to be second and that you can learn from the first and really show off with a compelling proposition. So yes there are new areas, they are compelling value propositions we think, it will be competitive across the board, but we’re prepared to compete recognizing that autoimmune therapy is one of the largest categories in the world for drugs, it’s mostly TNFs and we think it’s right to go ahead and introduce new innovation there.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

So with Xeljanz yes you are right the market has been very surprised that how slow that’s penetrated the market. Even though it’s a pill and it has a decent label. Do you think that you need to show, is it a safety issue, do you think with Xeljanz and can you beat that with Baricitinib or is it the scope of the indications. I mean what have you guys learned from the Xeljanz experience and how do you capitalize on that with your drug?

David Ricks

We’re spinning it carefully and I think the U.S. launch we can talk about, then I’ll comment about on OUS, because also that’s been much less successful I think in the U.S. even, so in the U.S. I think there is three key things that we’ll try to do better. One is label and launch, so to have a full data package that’s relevant to prescribers and rheumatiz is to treat RA with disease modifiers to modify the disease and they did not have relevant claims around that and I think they’re adding those now. But that’s important, particularly in the face of five or six competitors who would like to see you go away. So that’s a key issue.

Second is positioning, so I was confused personally by how they positioned the drug. I think it’s really being used after TNF therapy but that wasn’t really what they were saying and I think just as a marketer you need to line those things up. Your data, where you’re recommending use and then all the tactics including pricing and access to be able to support use in that setting and I don’t think that really came together for them we’re going to try to make that come together. That is a higher hurdle, but I think a more compelling business case, if we can show early phase data then we’ll need access in front of TNFs a value proposition to support that. When we see the data we’ll have to react and make that decision that’s certainly our hope is that we can move up stream.

So this is of the things we’re doing, we would plan to do differently in the U.S. outside the U.S. they didn’t launch in Europe they don’t have approval in Europe. We certainly are planning on it, almost simultaneous launch there. And in Japan, I think they’ve had a lot of issues. And that’s really about probably their management. And preparing the community to accept the new modality, we’re already working there. And I think there’s a lot of lessons learned that we hope to apply.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

What is the timeline on Baricitinib and when do you start to report of those studies?

David Ricks

So we’ll get in house by the end of the year. We have not said, whether we will top-line that first study. Although, we’re in collaboration with a smaller company and sometimes Insight may feel but that that’s material to them. So investors may hear about that before going away for the holidays at the end of the year. And then really to Q1 and early Q2 the rest of the Phase 3 roll off will top-line certainly the end of all that and then work on submission sometime in ’15.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

And just going back to ixekizumab how does your molecule, your IL-17 compare to your competitors? And again this is an area that is relatively new to Lilly do you need to add reps to monetize that asset or how do you see that play out?

David Ricks

So in another meaning overall just on the commercial presence, we already call on significant proportion of group mythologists, so for Baricitinib and lupus drug through our psoriasis business, we may create a more dedicated team, but we have relationships globally there. Dermatology no, but I’ll point out that all of the Derm companies who entered that space didn’t have our presence either. It’s a pretty interesting market, because there is a lot of derms in the U.S. but only a small fraction are actually right anti-TNF therapy or Stelara a few thousand. So the team size is pretty small, I mean our sizing is less than 100 people. So we would build that organically that’s the current plan, although we’re open to other collaborative ideas but that’s the current plan. And then begin calling on them in advance to launch with disease education and the launch into that.

The IL-17 class will be three drugs initially, so secukinumab from Novartis, Amgen as a receptor antibody they just read out some data they are in partnership with AstraZeneca. And then the two more similar products for secukinumab and ours and that they are antibodies to the protein, whereas Amgen has chosen its receptor approach. We don’t know all the IL-17s so the risk there is are you blocking something you didn’t want to block, although I think their early data can speak for itself on safety there. And we see impressive efficacy in Phase 2 with both the Amgen and the Lilly molecule. I think the key differences are going to be long-term safety it doesn’t wear out and then dosing and ease of use. The real opportunity in psoriasis treatment is to expand the market. Initially with IL-17 will be used behind TNFs, so the safety is established. We can then expand in front of TNFs. I think that’s a key opportunity for us. And then what we hope to do with a step down dosing is provide options for doctors who aren’t regularly treating with, immunosuppressant therapy to use Lilly’s IL-17 in a way to address disease either initially to dose up and give remission and then dose down to have less immunosuppressants through time, or use other strategies which will develop based on our read outs. So extending the brand inside of dermatology and inside psoriasis is really where we’re focused with the IL-17. And I think there’s a lot of opportunity to do it, recognizing psoriasis is the second most common are really in this order.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

Right, question I would like to hear.

Unidentified Analyst

I know here you talk about the autoimmune kind of launch plans it appears to me that even enter a fairly competitive market with various top list and French players. And that’s probably good both for Baricitinib as well as for the IL-17. And you’ve also mentioned a couple of times about pricing access, how do we put those two things together? And what is it that Lilly is going to offer in this market, is it going to purely a price equation that you’re going after or is it something different you’re doing with the access that allows you potentially to have a disproportionately higher share of that market?

David Ricks

Yes. Thanks for the question. Yes, I wouldn’t mean to communicate that we’re interested in to beating on price because we’re not. I think, particularly not immune disorders it’s a value driven equation and that’s the primary basis of competition. With IL-17 I think the first thing we have to realize that the difference in efficacy from -- certainly from anti-TNF therapies which are still the predominant choice. And also from Stelara will likely be substantial, okay. So, what we’re seeing in PASI 100s and PASI 90s is very significant increases in efficacy above what’s available today that’s the primary basis by which we will try to gain market access and drive use with positioned customers. If within the class, we may see competitive forces, including in the payor environment and we’ll need to respond to those, but our initial response will be on building value for payors and for prescribers and as needed we will compete on price.

But the first basis is to try to differentiate, fortunately it appears this mechanism this class can make and will make a substantial difference for patients above what’s available today and that’s I think exciting. Baricitinib, is a little different in the sense that this is really about market expansion fundamentally that’s the big opportunity is to build these orals in front of immunosuppressant biologics. If our data bears out that that’s an opportunity for us, one would think differently about pricing and access because you need the payor support to be used in front and you need a population health argument to make sense for them, which includes the pricing equation, which treats more people and delays anti-TNF therapy potentially. So we haven’t worked through the details of that but what we really need to do is to see the data. And if it turns out that we are basically an oral TNF, I think that’s a very different pricing and access strategy for us. So we will react to it as it comes, but I mean our mindset is first build value. We don’t want to be in a price driven business that’s not a business, that’s not fun to run, it’s about innovating and creating value for the patient also.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

Are you exploring Baricitinib for psoriasis also?

David Ricks

We are -- we have a Phase 2 program on going now. We of course with this mechanism JAK inhibitors are implicated in many-many autoimmune disorders. The trick of course will be to find the next indication with a compelling benefit over existing standard of care and that’s our critical -- that’s the outcome of the Phase 2 study in dermatologies that we’re looking for and we’ll see that data, I think in Q4 and make a decision sometime toward the end of the year about whether to ramp-up a psoriasis study with our JAK. We note the Xeljanz data. I would just say we probably hope for a bit more as a basis to proceed.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

Right, so let’s talk about the two high-risk, high-returns opportunities that Lilly is exploring. One is obviously solanezumab the other is the CETP inhibitor. Why I guess solanezumab, if you can describe that the -- what gives the Company confidence to continue to invest in this asset when we saw the first two studies fail yes, there was early signaled in earlier stage patients with disease. But what are doing in terms of study design and patient recruitment that you think enhances the probability of success?

David Ricks

Right, yes, thanks. So two years ago, we conclude EXPEDITION I and II and we miss the primary endpoints on both studies although in a miles group, we saw what we think was a strong signal. It was also very consistent signal. So some of this data has been published -- we are actually going to publish on mild on paper based on the data investors and others can see this. But we believe that we see a clear signal of effect. And most experts I know would say the same thing. Virtually every measure of efficacy moved in the right direction. It moved consistently across the studies and at every time point. So that’s the chance is that that is just pure chance. We think it is extremely low. There were flaws in how we conducted the study based on what we know now. The most important one is mild where most people believe we have to intervene earlier in the disease process and recognizing that mild patients have overt disease.

Actually, there are many experts who think you need to treat even before you have the diagnosis. I think that’s complicated from a registration perspective right now but mild is clearly what we want focus. Another very important one is the presence of amyloid plaque or confirmed Alzheimer’s. And when we conducted that study as bapineuzumab, the Pfizer and J&J product did, we found a surprisingly high proportion of patients who enrolled in this Alzheimer’s study through leading academic centers didn’t have Alzheimer’s. For us it was about one in four the mild patients for bapineuzumab, it was one in three and if they don’t have…

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

That’s actually really shocking.

David Ricks

It is shocking yes. And so now we have technology PET scans and other methods to quantitatively determine whether this amyloid plaque and this is very important because we had about one in four these in our mild arm even with that we showed -- we think a strong efficacy signal. But if you don’t have amyloid plaque and anti-amyloid agent doesn’t make a lot of sense and so your active arm is probably going to under deliver via factor 25% in our case. And if you don’t have amyloid plaque in the placebo arm, there is a lot of data that suggests you don’t progress. See you placebo over delivers your active under delivers and the powering just looks a lot weaker, I think that way just to the final point which is to how do we power EXPEDITION III. Why we would be confident, we’d hit the endpoints. This is basically double the size of the pulled mild population that we saw that had Alzheimer’s. We are going to study 2000 patients in a single pivotal. We think that’s both the practical upper limit, but also a definitive proof of the experiment. And we’re enrolling now.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

How far into that 2000 are you?

David Ricks

We’re deep into it and we are saying Q4 ’16 data availability it’s 18 months on drug. So we can probably back up from that say when we conclude enrollment. And we believe we’ll be the first disease modifying Phase 3 to readout at that point. So that’s still an exciting class for us.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

That’s a Roche outline that’s reporting sooner?

David Ricks

They do through their -- it’s actually Genentech product originally crenezumab. It’s a Phase II study that’s reading out this summer at the Alzheimer’s Meeting. It’s mild and moderate it doesn’t include some of these design features I just discussed. And I think if we see a big signal there, we would be encouraged. If we don’t, we have to look into why. But where we may bullish on Alzheimer’s and believes in that program. Evacetrapib is the other one that’s late stage and also people ask similar questions why would be confident with work torcetrapib failed a while ago.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

Dalcetrapib.

David Ricks

Dalcetrapib from Roche and what are differences and Merck already launched into these big programs although our program is about third the size of Merck’s. It’s a thicker population. We think with higher instance of risk on stroke, death and vascular events. We believe in this product because we think we power the study to show an effect on LDL lowering number that evacetrapib and probably Merck as well lower LDL independent about their mechanisms by 25% to 30%. And if you believe in LDL is linear to the outcome, we should be able to hit the endpoint just on that. And that would somewhere in the mid to low teens in terms of MACE reduction, but remembering that there is plenty of big cardiovascular products with less MACE reduction that have done pretty well. Really the excitement in the case is does driving HDL up about 100% and the other effects of C to B in other patients give you greater MACE effect. And we believe in that case although this is the experiment to prove it out. I think it’s safe to say if this works a lot of people would be surprised but probably not us. And we would feel pretty positive very bullish on the obtaining scale that product globally.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

It seems that interest in that class has diminished because of what we’ve seen with PCSK9 anti-body.

David Ricks

Yes, clearly they’re ahead of symptoms reading out their lipid data and the FDA has communicated to manufacturers. They would allow products on the market as long as your MACE is enrolled to some point. But clearly the CETPs would launch with MACE ahead of the MACE of PCSK9. Although this personal belief is you need a MACE study on PCSK9 just from a payer perspective outside of the heterozygous it’s going to be hard to get us.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

And you have your own PCSK9.

David Ricks

We do it’s in Phase 2. And we’re doing what we’ll be the last Phase 2 study now to readout in the second half of this year.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

So that would make you fourth or fifth in the market…

David Ricks

That will make us fourth if we decided to go forward, but we need to hit a threshold of differentiation there to make that decision. We do believe the class works. The question is really one of in asymptotic primary care setting and can you make it easy enough -- and that’s actually what we’re testing in the Phase 2 is a dosing interval that’s out eight weeks and showing dramatic LDL reduction and an easy to use and lower cost deliver platform that we’ll see the leader pursuing.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

Are you bullish on the class over all or do you think this could turn out to be more of a niche opportunity like what we’ve seen GLP-1s?

David Ricks

I am more on the moderated side. I do think one interesting effect would be at the CETP inhibitors work, I think the class for PCSK9s is a lot smaller because if you see people pursue the oral route and we’ll have the outcomes first. If CETP fails, I think it has a little bit more size to it, but somehow someone needs to make these antibodies affordable and convenient in a primary care setting. And there is a pretty shortlist of monoclonal antibodies that are in asymptomatic disease in a primary care setting, and that’s not an easy trick.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

So both solanezumab and evacetrapib are high-risk high return opportunities?

David Ricks

Yes.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

Of the two which -- where you’re more comfortable with the outcome? Which of the two do you think has the most potential to succeed?

David Ricks

Well, I don’t like to take as we like to evoke, but I would say we know more about sola actually because we ran in EXPEDITION I and II to very large proof-of-concept study. We have a lot of human data and a consistent trend of the outcome and its outcome data. CETP inhibitors no one ever demonstrated MACE outcome. So that’s one probably slightly higher risk and it’s also commercially easier. I think solanezumab people, I have seen published reports of very large forecast and that the market rollover and everyone will take this. I don’t see that I think we’ll have to change a lot about Alzheimer’s treatment that’s not to say the promise isn’t huge because it is. But it won’t be a completely straight path to success if solanezumab hits. But I think of the two surprisingly maybe for some I would put sola a little more confident just because we know more from the human study so far.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

Right, and with that we just spin out of time so.

David Ricks

Great, thanks for having me.

Jamie Turner - Goldman Sachs

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Question-and-Answer Session

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS.

If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com. Thank you!

Source: Eli Lilly (LLY) Presents at Goldman Sachs Healthcare Conference (Transcript)
This Transcript
All Transcripts