Medical Affairs Reputations: Renal Cell Carcinoma (EU5)

$10,495
Maximum Purchase:
1 unit
Publication Date:
April 2016
Format:
PowerPoint
Adding to cart… The item has been added

4 medical affairs teams working hard to engage oncologists. Which one gets top marks? 

European medical affairs teams for four renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treatments have been working overtime, interacting with 12-58% more oncologists than any other team in the past 6 months.

Is all their hard work paying off?

Find out which team scores highest for overall quality, and how oncologists rate the medical affairs teams for 7 major RCC treatments in Medical Affairs Reputations: RCC.

You’ll learn whether your team is giving oncologists the services they want, whether they’re satisfied with your performance, and where you need the most improvement.

Request Sample Pages

Interested in the US market? Click here to see the US Edition.

Answering Key Questions about Medical Affairs Teams for 8 Major RCC Brands

  • Afinitor (everolimus; Novartis): Which medical affairs team is more active, Afinitor’s or Inlyta’s?
  • Avastin (bevacizumab; Roche): Do oncologists think Avastin’s team does a better job providing competitive information or information about clinical trials?
  • Inlyta (axitinib; Pfizer):  Is Inlyta’s team doing a better job of responding to inquiries or providing oncologists with relevant materials?
  • Proleukin (aldesleukin; Novartis): Proleukin’s team gets high performance and satisfaction scores in most areas. How does it rank for overall quality of interactions?
  • Sutent (sunitinib; Pfizer): Sutent’s team’s satisfaction scores are far ahead of the pack in one key area. Which one?
  • Torisel (temsirolimus; Pfizer): Torisel’s team has the lowest satisfaction scores in all but one area. Which one?
  • Votrient (pazopanib; Novartis): Which team ranks higher for overall quality of interactions, Votrient’s or Sutent’s?

Top Takeaways

  • Fierce competition at the top of the market: Rated for overall quality of interactions, less than 4 points separate the 1st place team from the 4th place team.
  • Top 4 teams are highly active: In the last 6 months, they had up to a little over three times as many interactions with oncologists as other teams surveyed.
  • Oncologists hungry for information: They say the most important, and most used medical affairs services involve providing information and clinical support. 
  • Oncologists prefer face to face: In-person interaction types rank higher than electronic interactions and phone calls, although email is fairly well tolerated.
  • Teams doing a relatively good job: Though not off the charts, performance scores for every team covered are at least moderately high—and highest in the areas important to oncologists.
  • Some areas need improvement: Of the five medical affairs services most important to oncologists, most teams need to improve satisfaction in two of them.
  • Satisfaction could be better: Several teams have average satisfaction scores in most areas. Surprisingly, some of the highest scores go to the team with the lowest overall quality rating. 
  • Time to get organized: Several oncologists suggested improved organization and appointment scheduling as a way for medical affairs teams to provide better services.

An Expert-designed Competitive View of Your Medical Affairs Team

Developed with the help of medical affairs specialists, this report gives you an in-depth comparison of 8 medical affairs teams—answering important questions like:

What do oncologists need?

  • How, and how often are they using your medical affairs team?
  • What services do they consider most important?
  • How often should you contact them? What channels are best?

Does your medical affairs team deliver?

  • How memorable are your team’s interactions with oncologists?
  • How do oncologists rank your team for performance and satisfaction in 12 key areas?
  • How does your team compare to the competition—in each area, and overall?

What needs improvement?

  • Are you delivering the services that are most important to oncologists?
  • Where do you need to improve?
  • How can your team enhance its services?

Based on Interviews with Practicing Oncologists

We surveyed 100 US medical oncologists, chosen from the largest community of validated physicians in the world.

All respondents:

  • Have been practicing for between 3 and 35 years
  • See at least 5 patients with NSCLC in a typical month
  • Devote at least 50% of their time to direct patient care
  • Have interacted with at least one listed product’s medical affairs team in the last 6 months.

We conducted the survey between March 2nd and March 17th, 2016.

MONEY BACK GUARANTEE!

At FirstWord, we stand behind our reports. If you're not completely satisfied, we’ll refund your money. Guaranteed.

About FirstWord

FirstWord is an innovative industry intelligence leader serving over 240,000 Pharma and MedTech professionals worldwide. FirstWord offers a range of products and services designed to help your company gain a competitive edge by making key business decisions with speed and confidence.

  • FirstWord Pharma PLUS is a personalised and comprehensive intelligence service delivering up-to-the-minute pharma news, insight, analysis and expert views of importance to your company’s success.
  • FirstWord Reports deliver timely, need-to-know intelligence about your products, your competitors and your markets. Covering biosimilars, market access, medical affairs, sales & marketing, technology and therapy areas, FirstWord Reports provide expert views and intelligence on the challenges facing pharma today.

Learn more at www.firstwordgroup.com.