There is a drug used to treat a form of eye disease that causes blindness. The product, eylea, has dominated the market despite (until recently) having no evidence that it improves vision vs the competition, provides no significant improvement on other relevant clinical endpoints, had no major safety benefit, and it is priced at a comparable or higher level than all competitors
A development stage product had shown better potential for vision improvement without major safety concerns, but when I interviewed physicians to ask whether they'd still prescribe eylea if this "better" drug was approved. They unanimously, without hesitation, said they'd prescribe eylea
Why would doctors treat eye disease with a product that does a worse job of treating eye disease? Why would patients accept a treatment that does not optimally restore their vision? There was nothing in the clinical literature to suggest this made sense. This must be a case of a large, established pharma company playing dirty, maybe bribing doctors or brainwashing patients with tv ads
The reality is that eylea required fewer doses than the competing products. For this drug, dosage means injection in the eye with a big needle. Further, physicians don't get paid more for doing an additional dose, so for them it's lost revenue. Turns out the incremental vision improvement does not offset the benefits of less frequent dosing
Getting this insight is not a feat of data analysis or scientific brilliance, but simply talking to customers. And getting this right, in this case, means winning a $4-5 billion market
A development stage product had shown better potential for vision improvement without major safety concerns, but when I interviewed physicians to ask whether they'd still prescribe eylea if this "better" drug was approved. They unanimously, without hesitation, said they'd prescribe eylea
Why would doctors treat eye disease with a product that does a worse job of treating eye disease? Why would patients accept a treatment that does not optimally restore their vision? There was nothing in the clinical literature to suggest this made sense. This must be a case of a large, established pharma company playing dirty, maybe bribing doctors or brainwashing patients with tv ads
The reality is that eylea required fewer doses than the competing products. For this drug, dosage means injection in the eye with a big needle. Further, physicians don't get paid more for doing an additional dose, so for them it's lost revenue. Turns out the incremental vision improvement does not offset the benefits of less frequent dosing
Getting this insight is not a feat of data analysis or scientific brilliance, but simply talking to customers. And getting this right, in this case, means winning a $4-5 billion market