Taking Advantage of Generation “Like”: Using Digital Technology and Social Media to Reduce Trial Timelines

Matthew Doscher, Research Analyst
By Matthew Doscher,
Research Analyst

Social media is a dominating force throughout the entire world. Over 2.3 billion people use social network worldwide — that equals 31% of the global population. In the United States, 78% of the population possesses a social network profile. Now an extremely crucial tool, businesses try to find multiple ways to use social media advantageously. The pharmaceutical industry is no exception. Pharma companies look to use these new tools to help expedite trial timelines especially within Phase 4 studies.

Continue reading



Build or Buy: Should a Company’s Pharma Strategy Include MSL Outsourcing?

Matthew Doscher, Research Analyst
By Matthew Doscher,
Research Analyst

MSL (medical science liaison) teams’ responsibilities in pharma strategy can vary drastically based on many factors such as team level, company size and location. Even with these variations, most MSL teams perform a few core activities including identifying and building KOL relationships, delivering scientific presentations, continuing education, attending medical meetings and travel. The role of MSLs has been growing and evolving over the years, yet there is a division in the industry about the best way to meet companies’ MSL needs. While the majority of companies believe building an in-house dedicated MSL team is worth the effort, there are others who think outsourced MSL teams fit better into some companies’ overall pharmaceutical strategy.

Continue reading



Funding an Investigator Sponsored Study? Use Milestone Payments.

Natalie DeMasi, clinical development and medical affairs researcher
By Natalie DeMasi,
Senior Research Analyst

Funding an investigator sponsored study (ISS) is a great opportunity for companies to expand a product’s data portfolio, strengthen relationships with HCPs and demonstrate corporate goodwill.  Despite these benefits, there are some risks to ISS’s.  Namely, the data produced will be tied to the company’s product — regardless of the scientific merit — and the funding provided to the investigator may be open to public scrutiny.  For these reasons, most investigator sponsored study teams will carefully evaluate each research proposal and fund investigators based on milestone payments.

Continue reading


Database Studies Are a Favorite for Comparative Effectiveness Research

Natalie DeMasi, clinical development and medical affairs researcher
By Natalie DeMasi,
Senior Research Analyst

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is one of the most exciting types of research for a life science company.  The reason for this is CER’s high risk and high reward value proposition.  Should a CER study demonstrate that the company’s product is superior to a market competitor, the company can use those data to earn favorable reimbursement and impress physicians who may waver between which product to prescribe.  But, should the CER study demonstrate that the competing product is superior — well, let’s not talk about that.  CER can be so risky that some companies refuse to fund investigator-initiated trials (IITs) that are comparative studies.  As for company-run trials, teams may prefer to dedicate resources to database studies than spend oodles of money conducting trials that may backfire. Continue reading



87% of Surveyed Life Science Organizations Report at Least Partially Centralized Drug Safety Structures

Sarah Ray, regulatory affairs and safety researcher
By Sarah Ray,
Senior Research Analyst

When it comes to drug safety structures, Cutting Edge Information’s research demonstrates that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach. Instead, the pharmacovigilance structure that each life science team selects will likely depend on individual organizational needs. Some companies may prefer to leverage a completely centralized approach in which primary decision-making rests with corporate or global-level teams. Other companies may temper a centralized approach with limited autonomy for local-level teams. While global teams may continue to build drug safety strategies, a “somewhat centralized” approach enables country-level teams to adapt high-level pharmacovigilance strategies to specific regional or therapeutic area requirements.

Continue reading


Don’t Let Competitors Dictate Annual Physician Compensation Limits

Jacob Presson, pharmaceutical market access researcher
By Jacob Presson,
Data Products Team Leader

Companies setting annual compensation caps encounter a large number of challenges in implementing and maintaining a successful management system.  Annual compensation limits are put in place to make sure that engagement with physicians is compliant.  However, by their nature these annual rate caps may also limit the degree of engagement that a company can have with physicians.

Continue reading


European Pharmaceutical Market Access, Pricing & Reimbursement

10th October to 11th October 2016,
London, United Kingdom

SMi Group’s 22nd annual European Pharmaceutical Market Access, Pricing and Reimbursement conference returns to London from 10-11 October 2016. The conference is one of the most established in the world, focusing on the changes in pricing and reimbursement and market access.

Continue reading