Cover Image

歐盟5國的MA (醫療事務) 部門的評估:多發性硬化症

Medical Affiars Reputation: Multiple Sclerosis (EU5)

出版商 FirstWord 商品編碼 363951
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
歐盟5國的MA (醫療事務) 部門的評估:多發性硬化症 Medical Affiars Reputation: Multiple Sclerosis (EU5)
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,調查歐盟5國的150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: 596200674

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

In Europe's Multiple Sclerosis (MS) market, medical affairs teams for oral therapies outperform their platform-therapy counterparts-earning the 3 highest scores for overall quality of interactions.

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): Aubagio's team needs improvement in three specific areas. Which ones, and how important are they to doctors?
  • Avonex (interferon beta-1a; Biogen): Is Avonex's team better at providing competitive information or helping enhance patient access, education, and outcomes?
  • Betaferon (interferon beta-1b; Bayer): Betaferon's team does a slightly better job than Rebif's team of delivering three specific services. What are they?
  • Copaxone (glatiramer acetate; Teva): Which team is lagging farther behind in the two areas most important to doctors, Copaxone's or Betaferon's?
  • Gilenya (fingolimod; Novartis): Gilenya and Aubagio are just about tied for overall quality of interactions. Which team gets substantially higher satisfaction scores?
  • Lemtrada (alemtuzumab; Genzyme): Lemtrada's team earns high satisfaction scores in more than half of the areas surveyed. Does that translate into a high overall quality rating?
  • Plegridy (peginterferon beta-1a; Biogen): Plegridy's team is substantially more active than Betaferon's. Has it earned a commensurate lead in overall quality score?
  • Rebif (interferon beta-1a; Merck Serono): Which team is more responsive, Rebif's or Copaxone's?
  • Tecfidera (dimethyl fumarate; Biogen): Which two rival teams' overall quality scores are within one point of Tecfidera's?
  • Tysabri (natalizumab; Biogen): Tysabri's team needs improvement in two areas. What are they, and which one is more important to doctors?

Top Takeaways

  • Oral therapies lead the market: Ranked for overall quality of interactions, all of the top 3 teams represent oral therapies.
  • Interferons underperform: The top-ranked team for an interferon is more than three and a half points behind the lowest-ranked team for an oral therapy.
  • A key role in grant applications: Although providing clinical information is medical affairs teams' top role, European doctors also rely on them to provide information about research grants.
  • Good performance, variable satisfaction: Most teams perform well in most areas-especially key areas. But satisfaction scores tend to be lower and vary more from team to team.
  • Clear roadmaps for improvement: Every team needs to improve in at least two of the twelve surveyed areas.
  • Clear communication preferences: EU5 doctors overwhelmingly 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 attitude wanted: Doctors say teams can improve services by providing more information, improving their attitude, and being more organized.

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 150 neurologists-30 from each EU5 country (France, Italy, Germany, Spain, UK)-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 last 6 months.

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

Back to Top