Cover Image

美國的MA (醫療事務) 部門的評估:多發性硬化症

Medical Affiars Reputation: Multiple Sclerosis (US)

出版商 FirstWord 商品編碼 363949
出版日期 內容資訊 英文
商品交期: 最快1-2個工作天內
Back to Top
美國的MA (醫療事務) 部門的評估:多發性硬化症 Medical Affiars Reputation: Multiple Sclerosis (US)
出版日期: 2016年06月01日 內容資訊: 英文

本報告以多發性硬化症治療藥處理主要10項產品各公司的醫療事務 (MA) 團隊為對象,調查美國的100名神經科醫生,提供各公司 團隊的效能及滿意度的評分及排行榜,醫生的服務利用趨勢,要求,改善地方等分析彙整。


  • Aubagio (teriflunomide; Genzyme)
  • Avonex (interferon beta-1a; Biogen)
  • Betaseron (interferon beta-1b; Bayer)
  • Copaxone (glatiramer acetate; Teva)
  • Gilenya (fingolimod; Novartis)
  • Lemtrada (alemtuzumab; Genzyme)
  • Plegridy (peginterferon beta-1a; Biogen)
  • Rebif (interferon beta-1a; EMD Serono)
  • Tecfidera (dimethyl fumarate; Biogen)
  • Tysabri (natalizumab; Biogen)


  • MA隊的利用方法、頻率
  • 最考慮重要的服務
  • 聯繫的頻率和偏好的途徑
  • 對各團隊的醫生的印象
  • 各團隊的效能、滿意度排行榜:12項
  • 醫生的需求與服務的改善地方等
Product Code: 596200673

MS medical affairs: oral therapies outperforming in the US. How does your team measure up?

In the US multiple sclerosis (MS) market, medical affairs teams for oral therapies outperform their platform-therapy counterparts-earning 3 of the top 4 scores for overall quality of interactions.

Find out which platform therapy's team managed to take 3rd place, and where your team ranks in ‘Medical Affairs Reputations: MS. ’

The report compares teams for 10 major MS treatments head to head. You'll learn how neurologists rate them for performance and satisfaction in 12 key areas that reveal how well they:

  • Provide relevant information
  • Respond to medical inquiries
  • Help enhance patient care
  • Support clinical trials and grant applications
  • And more.

So you can see where your team leads, where it lags behind, and what you can do to improve.

Answering Key Questions about Medical Affairs Teams for 10 Major MS Drugs

  • Aubagio (teriflunomide; Genzyme): In which key area does Aubagio's team perform nearly as well as the 2nd place team?
  • Avonex (interferon beta-1a; Biogen): In which area does Avonex's team earn lower satisfaction scores than any other team?
  • Betaseron (interferon beta-1b; Bayer): Which interferon's team responds faster to inquiries from doctors, Avonex, Betaseron, Plegridy, or Rebif?
  • Copaxone (glatiramer acetate; Teva): Does Copaxone's team earn higher satisfaction scores for providing relevant information or helping doctors coordinate and integrate knowledge?
  • Gilenya (fingolimod; Novartis): Gilenya's team is slightly more active than Tecfidera's. Does that translate into higher overall scores?
  • Lemtrada (alemtuzumab; Genzyme): Lemtrada's team needs improvement in one specific area. What is it and how important is it to doctors?
  • Plegridy (peginterferon beta-1a; Biogen): Plegridy has the most active medical affairs team of any interferon. Has that translated into higher overall scores?
  • Rebif (interferon beta-1a; EMD Serono): Rebif's team and Plegridy's team are tied for overall quality of interactions. Which team does a better job of providing key services?
  • Tecfidera (dimethyl fumarate; Biogen): Tecfidera's team earns solid satisfaction scores in an area where most teams lag. What is it?
  • Tysabri (natalizumab; Biogen): In which two areas do Tysabri's team's satisfaction scores lag?

Top Takeaways

  • Oral therapies lead the market: Ranked for overall quality of interactions, 3 of the top 4 teams are from oral therapies.
  • Interferons underperform: The top-ranked team for an interferon is a full four points behind the lowest-ranked team for an oral therapy.
  • A key role in treatment decisions: US doctors top uses of medical affairs teams revolve around providing clinical information and support for treatment decisions.
  • Uneven satisfaction despite good performance: Most teams perform well in most areas-especially key areas. But satisfaction scores tend to be lower, and vary more from team to team.
  • Targeted improvements needed: While overall, teams are doing a good job of providing key services, a few need improvement in specific areas.
  • Clear communication preferences: US doctors prefer in-person interactions, but which type is best? Are they open to digital communications as well?
  • Do doctors want frequent interactions? Find out how many want to see medical affairs teams more than once per quarter, and how many say that's too often.
  • More information, better communication wanted: Doctors say teams can improve services by providing more information - particularly about trials and developments in the pipeline.

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 10 medical affairs teams-answering important questions like:

What do doctors 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 doctors?
  • How do doctors 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 doctors?
  • Where do you need to improve?
  • How can your team enhance its services?

Based on Interviews with Practicing Neurologists

We surveyed 100 US Neurologists, 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 MS 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 past 6 months.

We conducted the survey between May 2nd and 16th, 2016.

Back to Top