Solutions
About Us
Insights
Careers

Launch Communication: Addressing HCPs Effectively and Ensuring Product Success

The year 2025 promises to be an exciting one for pharmaceutical innovation, with an array of new therapies set to reshape the treatment landscape. From oncology to rare diseases, the industry is preparing to deliver innovative solutions across a diverse range of indications. In oncology, Summit Therapeutics’ ivonescimab will target non-small cell lung cancer and later breast cancer, while Daiichi Sankyo’s Enhertu expands its label to treat additional tumor types. In immunology, Johnson & Johnson’s Tremfya seeks approvals for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, with Amgen’s Uplizna pursuing indications for myasthenia gravis. Novo Nordisk’s CagriSema could redefine obesity treatment with potential weight loss exceeding 20%, while innovations in rare diseases include Elamipretide for Barth syndrome and Upstaza for AADC deficiency, addressing critical unmet needs. While all these projected launches represent significant scientific innovations, the road to successful commercialization in Germany requires more than scientific breakthroughs — it demands a strategic and tailored communication plan.

One of the most critical challenges in the German market is launch timing. Regulatory approvals are often uncertain, leaving companies working in a state of “near readiness.” Materials must be prepared to an advanced stage but remain flexible enough to adapt to last-minute changes. Furthermore, with the EU HTA reforms having entered into force on January 11, 2025, pharmaceutical companies are facing new dynamics in the evaluation of innovative therapies, which aim to streamline market access and improve patient outcomes.

Here, we’ll explore how to effectively prepare communication materials for a launch, breaking down the key phases.

 

Phase I – Pre-Launch

Step 1: Crafting your story and defining the USP

Each successful pharmaceutical launch starts with a clear story and a well-defined unique selling proposition (USP). With clinical trial data already available at this stage, your team can craft a compelling narrative that resonates with both healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients.

Defining the USP
The USP should highlight the product’s most valuable features. This is not necessarily an efficacy-related feature. For instance, simplicity in application can be a game-changer. Imagine transitioning from a treatment requiring three daily doses — often missed due to the complexity of adherence — to a single daily dose. This change not only improves adherence but also may enhance therapeutic outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Storytelling: Making your message stick
People remember stories far better than plain facts, a phenomenon known as story bias. Structuring your information as a narrative helps HCPs quickly grasp and retain the key message. Emotional appeal plays a significant role in this, making the message more memorable when tied to an impactful story.

The key elements of an effective story include:

  1. Starting point: The current situation or challenge (e.g., low adherence with multi-dose regimens).
  2. Conflict or problem: The pain points or unmet needs.
  3. Tension: The stakes involved, creating a sense of urgency.
  4. Solution: How the new product resolves these issues (e.g., simpler dosing leading to better outcomes).

Aligning story and message
While the story provides a narrative, your core message delivers the USP explicitly. It’s crucial to distill this into one clear, written statement that connects seamlessly with the story. For example:

  • Message: A once-daily treatment improves adherence and satisfaction.
  • Story: From the struggles of managing multiple daily doses to the simplicity and success of once-daily therapy.

By aligning the message with the story, you ensure that HCPs not only understand but also remember your product’s unique benefits.

 

Step 2: Building a robust publication strategy

A well-planned publication strategy is essential for maintaining momentum and ensuring that your product remains top-of-mind for HCPs over time. This phase requires strategic foresight, long-term planning, and alignment with your product’s unique story and USP.

Phases of a publication strategy
To create a cohesive and impactful presence, publications should be carefully timed to align with the product lifecycle:

  1. Pivotal study results: Highlight key clinical data that underpin your product’s value.
  2. Launch period: Release data and materials that support your key messages during the launch.
  3. Congress presentations: Leverage scientific platforms to amplify your findings.
  4. Case studies: Showcase how your product is used in everyday work of HCPs and what patients it is for.
  5. Review articles: Provide comprehensive overviews of the treatment landscape and background for your product.
  6. Non-interventional studies: Showcase real-world data to support effectiveness, safety and treatment adherence.

Long-term planning: Staying in focus
It’s vital to map out your publication strategy well in advance, especially before launch. The goal is to keep your product in the spotlight by regularly contributing to relevant discussions in the medical community. Some activities, such as planning a non-interventional study, require significant lead time and early involvement of HCPs in study design.

Setting the right topics
Your topics should align with your product’s story and USP. For example:

  • Mechanism of action: Highlight novel mechanisms that set your product apart.
  • Efficacy: Clinically relevant subgroup analyses or responder analyses can highlight efficacy outcomes further.
  • Safety and tolerability: An important topic for clinical practice. HCPs should know what to expect and how to manage.
  • Quality of life: Shift the conversation towards patient-centric outcomes.

A strong thematic focus helps positioning your product within the broader medical narrative. For instance, if the USP emphasizes improved quality of life rather than a survival advantage, ensure that this topic is prominently discussed in key publications, congress presentations, and continuing medical education (CMEs) programs.

 

Phase II – Launch

Step 1: Making the pivotal study known

The results from the pivotal study form the backbone of any pharmaceutical launch. They provide the data that underscores your product’s value, making it essential to disseminate the findings effectively and strategically to the medical community. Alongside this, preparing impactful launch materials ensures your sales and medical teams are equipped to engage with HCPs confidently and consistently.

Your pivotal study data needs to reach the right audience through the right channels:

  • KOL presentations: Engage trusted key opinion leaders (KOLs) to present findings at relevant conferences and symposiums, lending credibility and reach to your data.
  • Reprints and special issues: Distribute reprints of the study in medical journals or as targeted mailings.
  • Secondary publications: Collaborate with thought leaders to craft secondary articles to set the right topics (see above).

 

Step 2: Prepare essential materials

These materials act as a starting point for your field force, giving them something tangible to distribute and discuss during their initial interactions with HCPs. When creating materials, prioritize clarity and relevance.

  1. Quick-access materials
    • One-pagers: Compact, easy-to-read documents summarizing key product benefits and clinical data. These are ideal for quick reference and can be prepared early in the launch process.
    • Handout cards: Provide practical guidance, such as managing side effects or linking to a landing page via QR codes.
  2. Core materials
    • Detail aids: Ensure these materials support the product’s story and facilitate a natural conversational flow. Include elements like case studies to make the narrative relatable and impactful.
    • Slide decks: Develop a comprehensive slide kit that serves as the foundation for all other materials, from sales presentations to training content.
    • Conversation guides/objection handlers: Provide structured guidance for handling objections and addressing key questions effectively.

By focusing on these priorities, your materials will resonate effectively with HCPs, reinforcing your product’s value and fostering trust.

 

Step 3: Preparing the sales force

A well-prepared sales force is critical for effectively communicating a product’s value to HCPs. Training should not only provide in-depth knowledge of the product but also focus on presenting the benefits in a way that resonates with the physician’s daily practice and patient care priorities.

Comprehensive training: Thinking like an HCP
When training your sales team, it’s essential to adopt the HCP’s perspective. What matters most to the physician? Tailor the messaging to address the specific needs and interests of their role, practice, and patients.

  • Key questions for training:
    • What challenges does this product address for HCPs?
    • How does it make their workflow for patient treatment smoother?
    • What benefits can it provide to patients under their care?

To refine these messages and ensure relevance, consider engaging an Advisory Board of HCPs to provide insights during the preparation phase.

Translating product benefits into practical advantages
Effective communication bridges the gap between product features and the everyday concerns of HCPs and patients. Consider the following perspectives:

  • For the physician: How does the product improve treatment efficacy, patient outcomes, or time efficiency?
  • For practice staff: Does it simplify workflows or improve patient management?
  • For patients: What’s the tangible impact on their quality of life, adherence, or treatment experience?

For example, if the product offers once-daily dosing, the message for physicians could emphasize improved adherence and better clinical outcomes, while for patients, it could highlight ease of use and reduced daily burden.

Addressing side effects: A crucial focus
While side effects may not be the most engaging topic from a marketing perspective, they are highly relevant to HCPs. Addressing this aspect thoughtfully can establish trust and confidence:

  • Side effect management: Provide clear, actionable guidance on identifying and managing common side effects.
  • Adherence strategies: Equip HCPs with tools to counsel patients effectively, helping them stay on treatment despite potential challenges.

By emphasizing practical solutions to these concerns, your sales team can engage in meaningful, trust-building conversations with HCPs.

 

Phase III – Post-Launch

The launch may mark the beginning of your product’s presence in the market, but the post-launch phase is where sustained engagement solidifies success. This stage is about expanding your material offerings, deepening HCP and patient interactions, and leveraging diverse communication channels to maximize impact.

Step 1: Expanding materials and strengthening communication channels

As the product becomes established, adding resources tailored to both HCPs and patients ensures continued interest and adoption:

  • Brochures and patient materials: Create informative materials that HCPs can hand directly to patients, addressing key concerns and enhancing their understanding of the treatment.
  • Case studies: Develop clinical case studies to showcase real-world application and outcomes, helping HCPs connect evidence to practice.
  • Interactive study content: Transform pivotal study data into interactive formats, such as e-learning modules, to engage users more effectively.
  • Digital content: Enhance digital engagement with webcasts, podcasts, web content, and CME programs.

 

Step 2: Leveraging multiple communication channels

Different HCPs prefer different modes of communication. To make your message stick, it’s crucial to diversify your channels and formats:

  • Written content: Journals, brochures, and patient handouts for in-depth reading.
  • Audio content: Podcasts and narrated case studies for convenience and accessibility.
  • Visual content: Infographics, videos, and interactive slide decks to illustrate key points vividly.
  • Interactive engagements: Webinars, webcasts, and live Q&A sessions to foster real-time interaction and dialogue.

By continuously expanding resources and strategically using diverse communication formats, your post-launch strategy can maintain momentum, deepen engagement, and ensure long-term success.

 

Final takeaways: Strategic communication for a successful launch

Launching a pharmaceutical product requires meticulous planning, strategic storytelling, and continuous engagement. From pre-launch preparation to post-launch expansion, every phase is an opportunity to address the needs of healthcare professionals, establish your product’s value, and create lasting impact.

By aligning your messaging with the unique demands of the German market, utilizing multi-channel communication strategies, and addressing the priorities of both HCPs and patients, you can ensure a successful launch and a strong market presence.

 

Interested in learning more? Watch our recent webinar “Guide to Successful G-BA Consultations: Practical Tips for Market Access Professionals”:

Understanding the Critical Role of DMCs in Oncology Studies

In clinical research, particularly within oncology, Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) play a pivotal role in ensuring the integrity and safety of clinical trials. With the high volume of oncology studies and the extensive use of DMCs in these trials, it is essential to understand the specific nuances and challenges these committees face. Here, I provide an overview of the critical aspects of DMCs in oncology studies.

Read more »

Oncology Clinical Trials: Design Trends in Biomarker Research

Oncology research has seen many changes and advances in recent decades, from new therapies in combination with backbone chemotherapy to novel treatments targeting malignancies, and compounds targeting specific disease biomarkers at the genetic mutation level. The latter approach has called to question large, relatively long clinical studies assessing the safety and efficacy of treatments against a large population defined at the tumor level. Rather, research at the subpopulation or biomarker level has garnered much more interest as targeted treatments are being developed.  

This focus on subpopulations and biomarkers is changing how researchers approach clinical trials in oncology and helps resolve several issues with larger clinical trials. For example, treatment effects may be diluted in a heterogeneous population, possibly resulting in an underpowered study. Furthermore, a large trial in a heterogeneous population may place patients for whom the drug is ineffective at risk of serious adverse events. On the other hand, restricting enrollment to a target subgroup without sufficient evidence may deny a large segment of the patient population access to a potentially beneficial treatment. This blog post will briefly introduce two statistical approaches addressing the rise of more specific study populations: predefined subpopulation statistical analysis in the context of a larger trial population and population enrichment of the more promising subgroup within an ongoing study. 

Subpopulation Analysis 

Subpopulation testing and analysis is a phase III clinical trial design strategy in which a subset of the study population is selected based on patient characteristics that may be more likely to respond to the treatment under investigation. Identifying and analyzing specific subpopulations allows the researcher to explore whether a treatment leads to different effects in a pre-designated subpopulation. A subpopulation can be defined by any stratification characteristic such as gender or geography, and in oncology clinical trials, specific biomarkers identified within a study population. 

This type of approach to clinical research has several significant benefits in Oncology studies: 

  • A large trial in a heterogeneous population may place patients for whom the drug is ineffective at risk of serious adverse events. 
  • In a heterogenous population, the treatment effect may be diluted, possibly resulting in an underpowered study. 
  • Restricting enrollment to the targeted subgroup without sufficient statistical evidence of lack of efficacy in the non‐targeted subgroup may eliminate beneficial treatment options for patients. 
  • Subpopulation analysis allows for treatment recommendations based on individual characteristics. 

As with any novel adaptive design approach, subpopulation analysis requires several considerations at the design stage. These considerations include the specific definition of the subpopulations for analysis in the study, the appropriate timing for an interim analysis, the methods used for hypothesis testing and type-1 error preservation, and the sequence of hypothesis testing of the different subpopulations and/or the full study population.  

With these considerations in mind, rigorous planning and testing in the design stage of such a clinical trial is critical. Cytel’s East Horizon adaptive clinical trial design software offers a unique solution for the planning and testing of a clinical trial design that includes subpopulation analysis. In Cytel’s solution, hypothesis testing for the full and subpopulations can be performed using graphical multiple comparison procedures (gMPC) with a weighted Bonferroni procedure employed for closed testing. This method of hypothesis testing uses directed, weighted graphs where each node corresponds to a single hypothesis. A transition matrix is used as a complement to specify the weights and generate an intuitive diagram. Finally, a simple algorithm sequentially tests the individual hypotheses using the specified weights and hierarchies. 

 

Population Enrichment 

Population Enrichment is an adaptive clinical trial approach that includes the prospective use of any patient characteristic to obtain a study population in which detection is more likely than in the unselected population. There are two types of population enrichment: Prognostic Enrichment, in which a high-risk patient population is identified based on a biomarker, and Predictive Enrichment, in which the researchers identify a patient group more likely to respond to treatment. Some industry trends that have contributed to the popularization of this adaptive design method include the soaring costs of clinical trial execution, a move away from a “one-size-fits-all” approach to clinical development, and the rising interest in individualized medicine. This adaptive design approach has several benefits, including the identification of highly responsive patient populations, the efficient detection of a treatment effect in a smaller sample size, and the ability to identify beneficial treatments for a subgroup of patients that may have failed with a broader population in a more traditional study design.  

Population enrichment can be seen as an extension of the sample size re-estimation (SSR) methodology, which we discussed in more depth in a previous blog post. 

In the enrichment adaptive approach, a pre-specified number of subjects comprising the entire population, designated as cohort 1, is tested in an interim analysis, and a data monitoring committee reviews the results to assess efficacy or futility against predetermined thresholds. Suppose the analysis shows promising results for only a specific subpopulation of interest in the study, this population is “enriched” with additional patient enrollment in the remaining number of subjects of the study, designated as cohort 2, to enhance data collection for only this subgroup of interest and increase the overall probability of success of the study. As with any adaptive approach, this method has specific considerations, including closed testing with a p-value combination, the preservation of type-1 errors, and additional special considerations requiring attention in event-driven trials like most oncology ones.  

 

Final Takeaways 

Both subpopulation analysis and population enrichment are adaptive approaches to modern trial designs in oncology that offer great hope for researchers and patients alike. As the focus on specific patient populations narrows, these adaptive design types are gaining industry traction. Software-guided clinical trial design and simulation using tools such as East Horizon ensure adaptive elements are incorporated thoughtfully and are rigorously tested prior to trial launch. 

Learn more about these approaches in our upcoming webinar ‘’Oncology Clinical Trials: Design Trends in Biomarker-Driven Research’’ with Boaz Adler and Valeria Mazzanti.

News from ESMO: Challenging the Status Quo of Early Phase Clinical Trial Design — Moving from “Why” to “How”

Written by Natalia Muehlemann, Vice President, Clinical Development; Martin Frenzel, Research Principal, Statistical Consulting; and Michael Fossler, Vice President, Clinical Pharmacology

The importance of dose selection and early phase clinical trial design was on the scientific agenda of the ESMO (European Society of Medical Oncology) Congress, which took place on October 20–24, 2023, in Madrid, Spain. Speakers discussed investigator, regulatory (FDA), industry, and patient perspectives during the special symposium “Challenging the Status Quo of Early Phase Clinical Trial Design: Project Optimus.”

 

Highlight of ESMO symposium “Challenging the Status Quo of Early Phase Clinical Trial Design: Project Optimus”

Historically, the dose range of oncology drugs has been inadequately characterized prior to approval, leading to many post-approval dose changes in the labelling. Most of these post-approval changes have been overall decreases in dose. To address this challenge, the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence initiated Project Optimus. Since its launch in 2021, Project Optimus has been reforming the dose optimization and dose selection paradigm in oncology drug development. With consensus of multiple stakeholders on “why” the change is needed, the speakers focused on “how.” The key paradigm shift includes:

Read more »

Late-Stage Clinical Development Strategy: Trade-Offs and Decision-Making in the Confirmatory Setting

Despite accumulating learnings from early phases, several uncertainties remain to be addressed when designing pivotal trials. Adaptive trials can help mitigate uncertainties; however, the trade-offs and their impact differ in the confirmatory setting. Quantifying uncertainties and risks and planning for mitigating adaptations are necessary to maximize the chances of success while maintaining the required scientific rigor of pivotal trials. Quantitative strategies can help inform decisions and optimize choices. Read more »

Decision Making in Early Clinical Development

On March 16th and 17th the 5th East User Group Meeting took place in London.  This very successful 2 days saw a variety of talks on aspects of clinical trial design innovation.  Over the next couple of weeks, we will be reviewing some of the key topics which were addressed during the meeting.

In this post, we’ll take a look at Paul Frewer of Astrazeneca’s presentation on Decision Making in Early Phase Clinical Development.  This talk was very well received by the delegates and prompted plenty of discussion afterwards.

Read more »

APAC Biopharma Industry Insights: Trends, Opportunities, and Challenges

 

In the last 10 years, the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region has become a hotspot for clinical trials: the region contributed almost 50% of new clinical trial activity globally. The importance of APAC trials has also evolved, from the patients/sites being a contributor to address global patient enrollment issues to being a key player in global trials. This is driven by its large patient population, lower risk of competing trials, government support, pragmatic regulatory processes, lower cost of conducting trials, and strategic importance of Asian markets.

Read more »

2015 Highlights – Seamless Adaptive Clinical Trials: Now that we get the statistics, what’s really at stake?

Day three of our 2015 Highlight series. Our third most popular blog post is a look at the realities of implementing a seamless trial.

Seamless adaptive clinical trials have gained popularity for reducing the projected time it takes to complete the process of drug development. However, a new study by Cuffe et al., shows that despite a tremendous amount of statistical knowledge about seamless trials, sponsors remain unsure about how to calculate the financial and operational costs of a seamless clinical development program [1]. This in turn results in many unnecessary risks and missed opportunities.

This post offers advice on what you need to keep in mind in order to implement a successful seamless adaptive clinical study.

What is a Seamless Trial?

Also called a combined-phase study, the idea behind a seamless trial is simple: Instead of conducting several phases of a study, plan one adaptive trial where the phases are separated by interim looks. This tends to save time and reduce the number of patients.

For example, the seamless Phase 2/3 ADVENT trial (click image at right to read case study), took a clinical program whose traditional design would have been four Phase 2 studies and one large Phase 3 study, and combined it into a four arm trial, which dropped the two less successful arms after the interim look [1]. The data obtained from the successful active arm prior to the interim look was able to play the dual role of confirming safety, and thereafter establishing efficacy. Employing a seamless adaptive late phase trial reduced sample size from 520 to 350 [2].

When conducting early phase trials, seamless proof-of-concept and dose-finding trials have also become more popular. Their benefit lies in the fact that combining these two trials into one larger trial allows significant reduction in trial time. Cytel Consultants recently reduced trial time by an expected 9-12 months (and 100 fewer patients) by employing such a design.

Varieties of Seamless Trials:

Most seamless trials can be split into two broad categories. An inferentially seamless trial is one where some of the data used prior to the interim look also plays an inferential role after the interim look. Consider once again the combined Phase 2/3 ADVENT trial. The four arm trial prior to the interim look was meant to establish safety. This means that the data from the arm chosen to continue to the confirmatory part of the trial played two roles: prior to the interim look it helped establish safety, after the interim look the same data from this arm, combined with the data collected post-look, also helped to establish efficacy. As a result, the two look trial was inferentially seamless.

An operationally seamless trial, by contrast, is one where the data evaluated after the interim look is kept distinct from the data evaluated prior to the interim look. Each set of data has its distinctive purpose.

The Purported Inflexibility of Seamless Studies:

The flexibility of an adaptive design is often touted as one of its greatest advantages. Based on data collected at an interim look, DMCs can decide how to move forward in a manner which gives the new drug, device or biologic the best possible chance to prove its safety or efficacy.

Seamless studies are beneficial for reducing sample size and increasing the speed of the trial. Unlike other adaptive designs, however, seamless studies may be somewhat less flexible. This is particularly true for inferentially seamless trials. Cuffe et al., cite two reasons for this:

  1. In traditional trial designs, clinical trial sponsors are able to look at the entire set of data collected after a given phase, and make key decisions about the designs of the phases that follow. By contrast, unless  seamless adaptive studies allow for data to be unblinded at an interim look, DMC members must rely on go/no-go decision rules for the second stage of the trial. These rules will have to be determined even before the first stage of the trial begins, which means it may not be possible to take advantage of all of the information which the first stage can provide.
  2. In inferentially seamless trials, the final analysis combines a part of the data that was collected prior to the interim look with data collected post-interim look. In order to use this data, certain constraints must be placed on the entire trial design. As Cuffe et al., explain, “[I]t is worth noting that a seamless study allows only limited changes to the Phase III portion: substantial changes to study conduct can mean that the two portions answer different clinical questions.” [1]

The fact is that in a combined phase study, the basic structure of the post-look portion of the trial has to be determined prior to the interim look. Unlike in a traditional clinical program, a combined Phase 2/3 trial may not allow sponsors to look at all of the unblinded interim data to take advantage of new information which could affect design decisions.

Overcoming the Inflexibility of a Seamless Study: 

Although there is no doubt that seamless trials place certain restraints on late phase trials, sponsors have several reasons to employ a seamless design.

  • Early Phase Advantages: Cuffe et al., find that in practice, many of the restrictions cited above only apply to late phase studies. Their findings reveal that an early phase seamless adaptive study ‘incorporated multiple adaptations and took advantage of safety data from a dose-escalation study to increases the range of doses in the second portion…’ [1]
  • Late Phase Advantages: Although late phase seamless studies might not allow for as much flexibility as other adaptive trials, they have the potential to reduce sample size rather dramatically. In the Phase 3 ADVENT trial designed by Cytel, the use of a seamless study reduced sample size from 520 to 350. Securing a significantly smaller trial made the inflexibility worth it for the sponsors of the ADVENT trial.

 

Notes:

[1]: Cuffe, Robert L., et al. “When is a seamless study desirable? Case studies from different pharmaceutical sponsors.” Pharmaceutical statistics 13.4 (2014): 229-237.

[2] Operationally Seamless & Inferentially Seamless Adaptive Designs