Eli Lilly and Company

Eli Lilly and Company is a pharmaceutical company that has the goal of creating new products. Eli Lilly’s products are seen in hospitals and pharmacies around the US, with the hopes of growing internationally. By having a large number of drugs in their pipeline, they can be a key player in improving multiple types of illnesses as well as help aid the aging population. The healthcare sector is always one that is high-performing

Fast continuous alcohol amination employing a hydrogen borrowing protocol

A continuous flow method for the direct conversion of alcohols to amines via a hydrogen borrowing approach is reported.The authors are grateful to Eli Lilly & Co. (RL) and the EPSRC (SVL, grants EP/K009494/1, EP/M004120/1 and EP/K039520/1) for financial support. This work was supported by Eli Lilly & Co. through the Lilly Research Award Program (LRAP)

Student Companion: Intellectual Property (March 2012)

This article discusses Intellectual Property cases(respectively): “Human Genome Sciences Inc v Eli Lilly & Co.” [2011, UKSC 51] and“Fonterra Brands (Tip Top Investments) Ltd v Tip Top Restaurant Ltd” [HC Wellington CIV 2011-485-001011, 4 November 2011]

FRI0345 HEAD-TO-HEAD STUDY EVALUATING THE COMBINED ACR50/PASI100 TREATMENT RESPONSE OF IXEKIZUMAB VERSUS ADALIMUMAB: INDIVIDUAL PATIENT DATA FROM A RANDOMIZED, OPEN-LABEL STUDY IN BIOLOGIC-NAÏVE PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS THROUGH WEEK 52

Background:Multiple biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) are available for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but there are few direct comparisons of their efficacy and safety. In SPIRIT-H2H study, ixekizumab (IXE), a high-affinity monoclonal antibody selectively targeting IL-17A, was superior to adalimumab (ADA) at Week 24 for simultaneous achievement of ACR50 and 100% improvement from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 100) in patients (pts) with active PsA. Efficacy on other PsA domains was shown.1Objectives:To provide individual patient data demonstrating the simultaneous improvement in musculoskeletal and skin symptoms as assessed by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) percent improvement, respectively.Methods:Pts with active PsA fulfilling Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) criteria, ≥3/66 tender and ≥3/68 swollen joints, ≥3% psoriasis body surface area (BSA) involvement, no prior treatment with bDMARDs, and prior inadequate response to ≥1 conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD), were randomized 1:1 to open-label IXE or ADA (label dosing according to presence/absence of moderate-to-severe psoriasis [baseline BSA≥10%, PASI≥12, and static Physician's Global Assessment≥3]) in Study I1F-MC-RHCF (NCT03151551). In this analysis, max ACRx was defined as the maximum ACRx response a patient can achieve where ACRx derivation follows the typical ACR response criteria: ≥x% improvement in both tender joint count (TJC) and swollen joint count (SJC) and ≥x% improvement in ≥3 of the 5 remaining components, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index total score (HAQ-DI), C-reactive protein (CRP), Patient Global Assessment (PatGA), Physician Global Assessment (PhyGA), and patient assessment of joint pain (patJP). Missing data were imputed using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.Results:At baseline, demographic and disease characteristics were similar across treatment groups. Mean baseline values for the ACR core data set were 20.2 (TJC), 10.4 (SJC), 63.8 (PatGA), 10.2 (CRP), 59.2 (PhyGA), 1.2 (HAQ-DI), and 61.0 (patJP). Mean PASI total score was 7.8. Figures 1 and 2 show the maximum ACR response by PASI percent improvement at Weeks 24 and 52, respectively. Independent of joint improvement, more ixekizumab-treated patients compared to adalimumab-treated patients achieved ≥PASI 90 (76.6% vs. 57.5% at week 24 and 83.0% vs. 59.6% at Week 52). Evaluation of patient-level data shows that while very few patients had joint improvement but little skin improvement (max ACRx≥50 and PASI<50; Figures 1 and 2) in both treatment arms (IXE: 1.8%; ADA: 1.4%), fewer patients treated with IXE had no to little improvement in both joint and skin symptoms (PASI<50 and max ACRx<50) than those treated with ADA at Week 24 (IXE: 3.6%; ADA: 13.3%). A similar pattern was observed at Week 52 (Figure 2).Conclusion:Ixekizumab treatment was superior to adalimumab when evaluating the combination of musculoskeletal and skin symptoms of PsA as measured by ACR response and PASI response.References:[1]Mease PJ, Smolen JS, Behrens F et al., Ann Rheum Dis 2019; 79(1):123-131.Disclosure of Interests:Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Gilead, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Gilead, UCB, Ennio Lubrano: None declared, Talia Muram Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Chen-Yen Lin Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Soyi Liu Leage Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Lars Erik Kristensen Consultant of: UCB Pharma (Advisory Board), Sannofi (Advisory Board), Abbvie (Advisory Board), Biogen (Advisory Board), Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb,Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Forward Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharm

Compliance of Canada’s Utility Doctrine with International Minimum Standards of Patent Protection

This article analyzes the Canadian court case of Eli Lilly v. Novopharm and the utility doctrine in Canada, and international standards of patent protection including TRIPS and NAFTA. The ‘‘promise of the patent’’ doctrine in Canada seeks to ensure that firms do not obtain a legal monopoly on the basis of speculative claims about increased utility — especially claims about therapeutic efficacy — that were unsubstantiated at the time of filing. Under this test, some of Eli Lilly’s patented pharmaceutical products have been invalidated retroactively

Kurt Danysh v. Eli Lilly Co

USDC for the Western District of Pennsylvani

Eli Lilly: A Managerial Strategic Audit

This strategic audit assesses both internal and external landscapes affecting Eli Lilly; financial, qualitative, and competitive performance; strategy and governance; and recent strategic decisions. All information has been gathered from news reports, industry analyst reports, and Lilly’s investor reports, financial statements, and notes to investors. The purpose of this strategic audit is to showcase Lilly’s success in the brand name pharmaceutical industry based on the strategic decisions made in its 147 year history

Margaret Tourtellotte v. Eli Lilly & Co

USDC for the Eastern District of Pennsylvani

Equity valuation: Eli Lilly and company

The process of Corporate Valuation is crucial in the financial industry. This process plays an important role for several fields within the finance area, being essential for a well-functioning of a strong and healthy business. For the present project, we used the valuation process with the purpose to estimate the fair price of Eli Lilly’s shares for the 31st December 2020, comparing it with the market price of shares for the same date in order to understand if there are or not investment opportunities for the investors and thus, provide them an investment recommendation. During this document, we have applied two different methodologies: The Discounted Cash Flow approach which is a more subjective model based on assumptions, and the Multiples valuation approach which is a more direct and simpler model. The chosen company, Eli Lilly, represents an international pharmaceutical that develops and sells human pharmaceutical products. The company has been growing over years, having reported a 10% increase in revenues for the year 2020. Lilly is listed on Nasdaq and as of 31st December 2020, its shares were priced at $167,40 each. Using the FCFF model, we were able to achieve a value of$313,90 per share. Taking the conclusions based on the FCFF model, the model suggests that the share price for 31st December 2020 is undervalued. For that reason, our final recommendation is that the investors should buy the company’s shares.O processo de Avaliação de uma empresa é crucial no ramo das Finanças. Este processo desempenha um papel importante para diferentes vertentes dentro da área das finanças, sendo essencial para o bom funcionamento de um negócio forte e saudável. Para o presente projeto, utilizámos o processo de avaliação com o objetivo de estimar o preço justo das ações da empresa Eli Lilly para 31 de dezembro de 2020, comparando-o com o preço de mercado das ações para a mesma data, com a finalidade de entender se existem ou não oportunidades de investimento para os investidores, providenciando-lhes assim uma recomendação de investimento. Durante este documento, aplicámos duas metodologias diferentes: a abordagem dos Fluxos de caixa Descontados, um modelo mais subjetivo baseado em premissas e a abordagem de avaliação por Múltiplos, um modelo mais direto e simples de aplicar. A empresa escolhida, Eli Lilly, representa uma farmacêutica internacional que desenvolve e comercializa produtos farmacêuticos para humanos. A empresa tem vindo a crescer ao longo dos anos, tendo registado um crescimento nas receitas de 10% em 2020. A Lilly encontra-se listada na Nasdaq e a 31 de dezembro de 2020 as suas ações tinham um preço de $167,40. Usando o modelo FCFF, foi possível estimar um valor de$313,90 por ação. Tirando as conclusões com base no modelo FCFF, este sugere que o preço das ações para a data de 31 de dezembro de 2020 encontra-se subvalorizado. Assim, a nossa recomendação final é que os investidores devem comprar as ações da empresa