A successful cardiac drug. Disagreements about new potential markets.

BioTech Inc. is a large pharmaceutical manufacturer whose initial monoclonal antibody products focused on coronary care with important new markets emerging in other clinical areas.

The company was exploring how to best capitalize on a new neurovascular application in stroke.

The clinical staff enthusiastically supported the pursuit of the opportunity, but overall the management team felt the company lacked solid information to determine the commercial viability and attractiveness of the move.

Additionally, there was considerable disagreement within the clinical team about how to encourage broader physician acceptance of the drug, given that its usage could be made more effective but also somewhat more risky by changing the dosage or by being combined with other drugs.

Overall, is the market viable?
Assuming it is, how to position the drug's risk vs. efficacy to maximize penetration?

The management team wanted to resolve the nagging questions about the commercial value of the opportunity.

An important part of this answer hinged on determining the optimal efficacy and risk trade off required to drive adoption of the drug in the new market. However, physician decision-making patterns varied widely, depending on particular patient characteristics and hospital attributes.

BioTech Inc. asked Quattro to help analyze the market opportunity overall as well as to clarify the complicated issues around the market impact of risk vs. efficacy.

Extensive customer segmentation. Detailed sizing of penetration.

Created a quantitative Value Impact Model (VIM) to size the new opportunity overall and then to measure the revenue impact of market sensitivity to changes in the drug profile.

Used deep customer interviews to predict penetration and usage within subcategories of the disease state as well as hospitals.

Compared revenue potential under several alternative scenarios, regarding efficacy vs. safety of the drug when used alone or in combination.

Internal disagreements resolved. Unified execution.

The management team was able to rely on clear information in making its decisions about whether and how to proceed in the new market.

Because the analysis predicted the real potential from the optimal risk-efficacy profile, interdepartmental disagreements were resolved, and the company was able to unify its clinical focus.