Is Europe and European Evidence Development an Afterthought in Pharmaceutical Early Stage Development Decisions? An Exploratory Qualitative Survey
Author(s)
Matias Ricci, MBA, David Alderson, MBA, MSc.
Cogentia Healthcare Consulting, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Cogentia Healthcare Consulting, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: Explore current sentiment towards European market attractiveness and prioritisation within the development process from an industry perspective
METHODS: Following a targeted literature review exploring launch availability, and general reports on European pharma business case, Cogentia created a short, anonymized survey, targeting individuals involved in pharmaceutical development. The survey included nine questions, the first three were profile related, the next 2 exploring attractiveness of the European market and view on future change, the subsequent 2 questions explored if Europe evidence requirements were considered when entering Ph2 trials, and subsequent comparative trials, and finally a question on top 3 threats for pharmaceutical innovation. The survey was based on closed-ended questions, and forced response approach.
RESULTS: Based on 20 responses from an equal mix of employees from large and small companies, the relative weighting of Europe in the business case for new assets was broadly slightly higher than global sales % at 30% vs 15%. However, 70% of respondents saw Europe as still an attractive pharma market, with just over 50% seeing this attractiveness declining in the next 5 years. Over 70% of respondents were aware of decisions not to invest further in comparative trials based on commercial factors, but for 80% of respondents European evidence requirements (such as comparative outcomes) were considered in Phase 2. The respondent’s view of the future attractiveness of the European market was not correlated to past decisions or whether the company actively considered European requirements at Phase 2. European JCA and the US IRA are the top 2 identified threats for pharmaceutical innovation
CONCLUSIONS: A majority of companies consider European evidence requirements at Phase 2, although that doesn’t always result in further investment in comparative studies. The majority of respondents see the market as still attractive although the majority see this attractiveness decreasing in the next 5 years.
METHODS: Following a targeted literature review exploring launch availability, and general reports on European pharma business case, Cogentia created a short, anonymized survey, targeting individuals involved in pharmaceutical development. The survey included nine questions, the first three were profile related, the next 2 exploring attractiveness of the European market and view on future change, the subsequent 2 questions explored if Europe evidence requirements were considered when entering Ph2 trials, and subsequent comparative trials, and finally a question on top 3 threats for pharmaceutical innovation. The survey was based on closed-ended questions, and forced response approach.
RESULTS: Based on 20 responses from an equal mix of employees from large and small companies, the relative weighting of Europe in the business case for new assets was broadly slightly higher than global sales % at 30% vs 15%. However, 70% of respondents saw Europe as still an attractive pharma market, with just over 50% seeing this attractiveness declining in the next 5 years. Over 70% of respondents were aware of decisions not to invest further in comparative trials based on commercial factors, but for 80% of respondents European evidence requirements (such as comparative outcomes) were considered in Phase 2. The respondent’s view of the future attractiveness of the European market was not correlated to past decisions or whether the company actively considered European requirements at Phase 2. European JCA and the US IRA are the top 2 identified threats for pharmaceutical innovation
CONCLUSIONS: A majority of companies consider European evidence requirements at Phase 2, although that doesn’t always result in further investment in comparative studies. The majority of respondents see the market as still attractive although the majority see this attractiveness decreasing in the next 5 years.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
EPH150
Topic
Epidemiology & Public Health, Medical Technologies
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas