Decoding How Stakeholders Drive Biosimilar Adoption

Posted by Tucker Herbert on Thu, Mar 15, 2018

Disparate uptake of biosimilars to date show that developing a biosimilar is far from a sure bet. Launching any new drug is challenging, but launching a biosimilar can be especially tricky because of the increased uncertainty across regulatory, legal and commercial spheres on one hand and an expectation that significant promotional effort will be required (without being able to differentiate on safety/efficacy) on the other. Is choosing between biosimilars (or an originator) making a therapeutic choice? In the eyes of the FDA, unless a biosimilar has been granted interchangeability, the product choice remains with MDs as the products have been deemed to have equivalent safety/efficacy without being identical. (Other key stakeholders are developing a range of perspectives on this topic.) To ensure commercial success, biosimilar developers (and defenders) need to have a strategic plan for forecasting and conducting market research to fully understand the market complexity. It’s also critical to align the incentives for providers, patients, payers, pharmacists and procurement—all of whom can play a critical role in driving or delaying a new biosimilar’s uptake.


>
Read More

How Oncology Sales Leaders Can Get a Clearer Picture of Rep Performance

Posted by Jeff Traenkner on Mon, Dec 12, 2016


Constructing effective incentive compensation plans can be difficult in any therapeutic area, but oncology presents even more of a challenge given its extremely complicated market, frequent changes, small patient populations, low sales volume and products that are used across multiple indications. These complications make it a struggle to generate a complete picture of sales team performance. As a result, companies must assess the performance of their teams—and incentivize them accordingly—based on partial information. It’s akin to looking through a clouded window.


>
Read More

How Can You Motivate Reps to Launch an Oncology Product if the Data Isn’t Perfect?

Posted by Mike Martin on Fri, Feb 19, 2016

One of the biggest challenges with sales compensation for oncology product launches is the data uncertainty. I’ve seen companies use market data, incidence data, field-provided data and even sales from other products in their portfolios when working to determine appropriate comp plans for new products. However, even those companies that use combinations of the various available sources know that it’s directional at best. 


>
Read More

Mastering the Emotional Side of Oncology Marketing

Posted by Maria Whitman on Thu, Jan 07, 2016

There was a time when clinical evidence—primarily efficacy, tolerability and safety—could be counted on as the most predictable basis for oncology treatment decisions. However, in recent years, my clients and I have seen non-clinical factors become increasingly important to oncologists.


>
Read More

What’s Driving the Growth of the Oncology Field Medical?

Posted by Sarah Jarvis on Thu, Oct 22, 2015

Over the past few years, many of my medical affairs field leadership clients across all therapeutic areas have considered expanding their field-based medical teams. What struck me recently was that easily half of these clients were the oncology field medical leadership. Being ZSers, our internal medical affairs team decided to run some quick analyses to see if we could figure out what was going on. What we discovered was startling.

The rule of thumb most often cited is that for every 10 sales reps, you should have 1 medical science liaison (MSL) in field. Based on data from a few years ago, this was absolutely the case, though, of course, individual companies and teams had wide variations based on business need and their historical presence with MSLs, among other factors. But, when we analyzed PharmaForce’s 2014 data on U.S. MSL and sales rep staffing levels, we saw that the general rule of 10 to 1 didn’t hold true for oncology (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

 

 


>
Read More