Medical Affairs Reputations: Renal Cell Carcinoma (US)

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

Opdivo’s medical affairs team working overtime to engage oncologists. Is it paying off?

Opdivo’s medical affairs team has been busy. Since late 2015, when the Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody got FDA approval for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treatment, they’ve been one of the most active teams in the US market.

Is it paying off?

Find out how oncologists rate Opdivo’s team, and how the teams for 7 other major RCC treatments measure up, 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 European market? Click here to see the EU5 Edition.

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

  • Afinitor (everolimus; Novartis): Are oncologists more satisfied with Afinitor’s team or Votrient’s?
  • Avastin (bevacizumab; Genentech): Which brand’s team is tied with Avastin’s for overall quality of interactions?
  • Inlyta (axitinib; Pfizer): Does Inlyta’s team outperform Votrient’s?
  • Opdivo (nivolumab; BMS): Performance scores for Opdivo’s team are mostly middle of the pack, but it excels in two areas. Which two?
  • Proleukin (aldesleukin; Prometheus): 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 is one of the leading teams in Europe. How is it doing in the US?
  • Torisel (temsirolimus; Pfizer): Is Torisel’s team better at responding promptly to inquiries or providing scientific and product information?
  • Votrient (pazopanib; Novartis):  Has Votrient’s team interacted with more oncologists than Afinitor’s, Avastin’s, or Inlyta’s in the last 6 months?

Top Takeaways

  • Huge lead for #1 team: Despite average performance and satisfaction scores in several areas, its overall quality rating is more than double that of its closest competitor.
  • Stiff competition downmarket: Rated for overall quality of interactions, a mere 2 points separate the 2nd place team from the 5th place team.
  • Unmet need in the market: The way oncologists use medical affairs teams right now suggests high levels of unmet need in the market.
  • Oncologists hungry for information: They say the most important medical affairs services involve providing information and clinical support. 
  • Solid performance: Scores are moderately high to high—especially in important areas. Some of the highest go to the team with the lowest overall quality rating.
  • Several areas need improvement: Most teams need to improve satisfaction in 3 to 4 of the 6 services most important to oncologists.
  • Satisfaction is high, but not across the board: Several teams earn high scores in most areas, but others lag. 
  • Oncologists prefer meeting face-to-face: In-person interaction types rank higher than electronic interactions and phone calls, although email is fairly well tolerated.

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.