Multiple Sclerosis Clinical Pipeline Analysis
Multiple Sclerosis Clinical Pipeline Analysis reveals neurologists’ detailed perceptions of developing multiple sclerosis drugs, including Evobrutinib and Orelabrutinib. The report’s data also include neurologists’ competitive assessments of each pipeline treatment compared to existing treatments, as well as their level of familiarity and excitement for new multiple sclerosis drugs.
The success or failure of new multiple sclerosis drugs may depend on the level of enthusiasm that neurologists have for the launching drug. Within the multiple sclerosis market, neurologists have more than a dozen viable treatment options in their armamentarium, with another half-dozen or more to consider in the pipeline. Any excitement for a new drug will be tempered by the efficacy and availability of existing treatments.
This strategy guide includes in-depth insights from US neurologists about the multiple sclerosis clinical pipeline. The report details how neurologists expect that new multiple sclerosis drugs will impact the MS market, how they will compete against existing branded treatments and which compounds’ clinical attributes provide advantages or disadvantages in the marketplace.
Overview of the Clinical Pipeline for Multiple Sclerosis Drugs
Neurologists treating multiple sclerosis have many options to choose from, depending on the patients’ unique set of needs. But new market entrants will present additional strengths and opportunities for neurologists to consider when prescribing an MS treatment. Multiple Sclerosis Clinical Pipeline Analysis examines each MS pipeline drug’s strengths and weaknesses across six key clinical attributes:
- Access
- Dosing
- Efficacy
- Safety
- Support
- Tolerability
The report also conveys US neurologists’ familiarity and excitement about the multiple sclerosis clinical pipeline.
Pipeline Treatments Analyzed
- Evobrutinib
- Orelabrutinib
- Vidofludimus Calcium
- Tolebrutinib
- Divozilimab
- Bee Venom
- Naltrexone Hydrochloride
Strategic Questions Answered about New Multiple Sclerosis Drugs
- Awareness: What is the level of awareness and excitement among physicians for each of the leading MS pipeline therapies?
- Perceptions: How do physicians perceive pipeline therapies in terms of their efficacy, safety, dosing, tolerability, access, and support?
- Competitive Impact: Which inline MS brands will be most impacted in the future by MS pipeline therapies?
Summary of Strategic Multiple Sclerosis Clinical Pipeline Insights
- More Neuros say they are familiar or very familiar with Evobrutinib than any other pipeline treatment. They expect it to have better efficacy, safety, and tolerability than competitor treatments.
- While Evobrutinib competes with escalation therapies like Ocrevus and Kesimpta, Orelabrutinib may compete with therapies typically used earlier in the algorithm, such as Gilenya and Tecfidera.
- Bee Venom is the only pipeline treatment that is not expected to have any competitive advantages compared to existing MS therapies. It has the largest percentage of Neuros who are unexcited about it.
Benefits of Purchasing Multiple Sclerosis Clinical Pipeline Analysis
- Cost-efficient insights about the multiple sclerosis clinical pipeline to support your strategic decisions.
- Insights drawn from in-depth interviews among US KOLs and surveys of more than 125 neurologists.
- A complimentary 30-minute workshop with you (and your team).
- Unlimited support from Vivisum’s multiple sclerosis strategist for 1-year.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary – 5
The Strategic Six – Key Insights about MS Pipeline Treatments- 6
Impact Scores for MS Pipeline Products- 7
Pipeline Expectations vs. Competitors – 8
MS Clinical Pipeline Superlatives – 9
Pipeline Awareness & Excitement – 10
- Pipeline Treatments with the Highest Familiarity – 11
- Pipeline Treatments HCPs Have Heard of But Are Not Familiar With – 12
- Pipeline Treatments with the Least Familiarity 13
- Pipeline Treatments with the Highest Excitement -14
- Pipeline Treatments with the Highest Ambivalence – 15
Pipeline Treatment Competitive Outlook – 16
- Evobrutinib Competitive Outlook – 17
- Evobrutinib Competitive Summary – 18
- Evobrutinib Familiarity – 19
- Evobrutinib Excitement – 20
- Evobrutinib Competitors – 21
- Evobrutinib Efficacy Expectations vs. Competitors – 22
- Evobrutinib Safety Expectations vs. Competitors – 23
- Evobrutinib Dosing Expectations vs. Competitors – 24
- Evobrutinib Tolerability Expectations vs. Competitors – 25
- Evobrutinib Access Expectations vs. Competitors – 26
- Evobrutinib Support Expectations vs. Competitors – 27
- Orelabrutinib Competitive Outlook – 28
- Orelabrutinib Competitive Summary – 29
- Orelabrutinib Familiarity – 30
- Orelabrutinib Excitement – 31
- Orelabrutinib Competitors – 32
- Orelabrutinib Efficacy Expectations vs. Competitors – 33
- Orelabrutinib Safety Expectations vs. Competitors – 34
- Orelabrutinib Dosing Expectations vs. Competitors – 35
- Orelabrutinib Tolerability Expectations vs. Competitors – 36
- Orelabrutinib Access Expectations vs. Competitors – 37
- Orelabrutinib Support Expectations vs. Competitors – 38
- Vidofludimus Calcium Competitive Outlook – 39
- Vidofludimus Calcium Competitive Summary – 40
- Vidofludimus Calcium Familiarity – 41
- Vidofludimus Calcium Excitement – 42
- Vidofludimus Calcium Competitors – 43
- Vidofludimus Calcium Efficacy Expectations vs. Competitors – 44
- Vidofludimus Calcium Safety Expectations vs. Competitors – 45
- Vidofludimus Calcium Dosing Expectations vs. Competitors – 46
- Vidofludimus Calcium Tolerability Expectations vs. Competitors – 47
- Vidofludimus Calcium Access Expectations vs. Competitors – 48
- Vidofludimus Calcium Support Expectations vs. Competitors – 49
- Tolebrutinib Competitive Outlook – 50
- Tolebrutinib Competitive Summary – 51
- Tolebrutinib Familiarity – 52
- Tolebrutinib Excitement – 53
- Tolebrutinib Competitors – 54
- Tolebrutinib Efficacy Expectations vs. Competitors – 55
- Tolebrutinib Safety Expectations vs. Competitors – 56
- Tolebrutinib Dosing Expectations vs. Competitors – 57
- Tolebrutinib Tolerability Expectations vs. Competitors – 58
- Tolebrutinib Access Expectations vs. Competitors – 59
- Tolebrutinib Support Expectations vs. Competitors – 60
- Divozilimab Competitive Outlook – 61
- Divozilimab Competitive Summary – 62
- Divozilimab Familiarity – 63
- Divozilimab Excitement – 64
- Divozilimab Competitors – 65
- Divozilimab Efficacy Expectations vs. Competitors – 66
- Divozilimab Safety Expectations vs. Competitors – 67
- Divozilimab Dosing Expectations vs. Competitors – 68
- Divozilimab Tolerability Expectations vs. Competitors – 69
- Divozilimab Access Expectations vs. Competitors – 70
- Divozilimab Support Expectations vs. Competitors – 71
- Bee venom Competitive Outlook – 72
- Bee venom Competitive Summary – 73
- Bee venom Familiarity – 74
- Bee venom Excitement – 75
- Bee venom Competitors – 76
- Bee venom Efficacy Expectations vs. Competitors – 77
- Bee venom Safety Expectations vs. Competitors – 78
- Bee venom Dosing Expectations vs. Competitors – 79
- Bee venom Tolerability Expectations vs. Competitors – 80
- Bee venom Access Expectations vs. Competitors – 81
- Bee venom Support Expectations vs. Competitors – 82
- Naltrexone Hydrochloride Competitive Outlook – 83
- Naltrexone Hydrochloride Competitive Summary – 84
- Naltrexone Hydrochloride Familiarity – 85
- Naltrexone Hydrochloride Excitement – 86
- Naltrexone Hydrochloride Competitors – 87
- Naltrexone Hydrochloride Efficacy Expectations vs. Competitors – 88
- Naltrexone Hydrochloride Safety Expectations vs. Competitors – 89
- Naltrexone Hydrochloride Dosing Expectations vs. Competitors – 90
- Naltrexone Hydrochloride Tolerability Expectations vs. Competitors – 91
- Naltrexone Hydrochloride Access Expectations vs. Competitors – 92
- Naltrexone Hydrochloride Support Expectations vs. Competitors – 93
Contact – 94
