Non-members: Click here to review a complimentary excerpt from "Effient Case Study: Stumbling When Taking On The Market Leader"
The blood thinner Effient entered the market with expectations of becoming a blockbuster for Daiichi Sankyo and Eli Lilly. The novel platelet inhibitor was taking on Plavix, a $6 billion a year product that was approaching patent expiration. Given Effient's clinical trials showing superiority over Plavix, analysts thought Effient would be able to capture enough market share to attain blockbuster status. But a number of stumbling blocks tripped up Effient's launch, from thought leader support to target patient population. While the Lilly/Daiichi team made a number of missteps, the underlying issue was Effient's high safety risk and how that was handled across a number of key launch activities.
Using interviews with Lilly launch and marketing leaders and extensive secondary research, Best Practices, LLC produced this in-depth look at Effient's lackluster launch and the various stumbling blocks that caused a promising product to stumble at market entry. Executives can use this comprehensive case study to avoid making similar missteps while launching new products into a competitive marketplace.
- Market Entry Pitfalls Analysis: Key Areas Where Effient Stumbled During Early Market Entry
- Initial Product Profile Promised a Clear Path to Market & Blockbuster Success
- With Superior Efficacy came a Higher Risk of Potentially Fatal Bleeding…And a Disappointing Market Entry
- Market Entry Stumbling Blocks: Thought Leader Support was Deep but Not Wide into the U.S. Market
- Market Entry Stumbling Blocks: Effient Misjudged How Benefits Would be Judged by Cardiologists
- Market Entry Stumbling Blocks: Effient Sales Force Field Execution was Clumsy
- Market Entry Stumbling Blocks: Effient’s Target Patient Population Became Obscured by Side Effect Profile
- Market Entry Stumbling Blocks: Effient’s Partnership Differences Affected Launch Execution
- Market Entry Stumbling Blocks: Effient’s Failure to use Non-Responder Test at Launch Proved Ill-Advised
- Market Entry Stumbling Blocks: Effient Over-Reached for Pricing Against a Market Leader Soon to Turn Generic
- Market Entry Stumbling Blocks: Consent Decree Environment Stymied Effient Launch Creativity & Boldness
- Lessons Learned & Key Take Aways
- Comparison of World-Wide Fiscal Year 2009 - 4th Quarter Sales Between Effient and Plavix
- Costs Comparison between Plavix and Effient for Heart Disease Treatment After Beginning Drug Treatment
- Comparison between Plavix and Effient of number of non-fatal heart attacks after use & number of blood clots within one month of use per 100 patients
- Comparison between Plavix and Effient of bleeding-related fatalities of patients over 75, & all bleeding-related events in overall population
SAMPLE KEY FINDING
- Efficacy Benefits & Safety Concerns were Both Extreme: Efficacy was high – but it came with a price: a potentially fatal bleeding side effect. Many physicians were concerned by this safety risk, which obscured the efficacy benefit in their eyes.
- Thought Leader Support in the U.S. was Deep But Not Wide: Effient won highly esteemed US thought leader support – but hindsight suggests it wasn’t as broad as would be necessary to address market concerns about its bleeding side effect. Whether this was due to cost savings or oversight, it proved to be an important factor.
- Many Payers and Physicians Were Not Won Over to the Higher Price / Superior Benefits Positioning: Ensure strong business case with managed care to win favorable place on formularies & bring payers on board before launch. Effient did not have broad payer approval – and Plavix’s rapid approach to patent loss didn’t inspire payers to pay more in view of the risk.
Insights were drawn from interviews with Eli Lilly launch and marketing leaders, an interview with a Duke University Medical Center cardiologist and secondary research.