Lilly Responds to NYT Article on Lechleiter "Off-Label" E-Mail

Lilly wasted no time in drafting a formal response to the NYT's Friday article, "Lilly E-Mail Discussed Off-Label Use," which stated that CEO-to-be John C. Lechleiter sent a 2003 internal e-mail that advised the off-label promotion of Zyprexa (olanzapine) for children. The Pathophilia blog also wasted no time in questioning the intelligence of a high-level pharma executive who would draft such an e-mail. According to the NYT, the contents of Lechleiter's e-mail were revealed during the ongoing proceedings of the state of Alaska v. Eli Lilly, in which Alaska seeks reimbursement from the drug company for Medicaid costs related to Zyprexa-related diabetes.

In its response, Lilly called the NYT's assertions "flat out wrong" and claimed that the paper "mischaracterized Lechleiter's e-mail, which the court deemed inadmissible." However, Lilly neglected to mention that the e-mail was deemed inadmissible because the claims seeking damages due to off-label promotion were dismissed by the judge, not because of any misrepresentation made by the prosecution (or others) about the e-mail.

Lilly also advised that, during 2003, Lechleiter oversaw the development of new products and late-stage clinical programs; he was not in a position to "oversee or direct promotional or marketing activities." With its statement, Lilly evidently meant to defend Lechleiter's intention to provide medical guidance for off-label questions, given his clinical position; however, Lechleiter's non-marketing position coupled with his e-mail that addressed marketing issues could just as easily be used to indict Lechleiter's intentions, rather than defend them.

Lilly also implied that Lechleiter's e-mail was merely a response to pleas from the medical community on how to care for "special patient populations." "Dr. Lechleiter's email was nothing more than a call to action to ensure Lilly's development organization placed a high priority on conducting clinical trials to address these important medical questions," Lilly wrote. Take that explanation for what you will. But until the full e-mail is made publicly available (perhaps by another state seeking reimbursement for the off-label promotion of Zyprexa), Lechleiter's intentions can only be interpreted from disclosed e-mail excerpts and Lilly's PR department.