Multiple Sclerosis Rational Brand Perceptions
Neurologists’ process for determining which is the best treatment for MS involves understanding each treatment’s efficacy, safety and tolerability, among other clinical attributes. Multiple Sclerosis Rational Brand Perceptions provides neurologists’ rankings of the most ideal treatment for multiple sclerosis.
The rational basis for prescribing any multiple sclerosis treatment hinges on a neurologist’s perceptions of how the drug will work for the individual patient. This strategy guide offers a quantitative assessment of multiple sclerosis brand perceptions to assist commercial executives in understanding how to properly position their drugs and communicate to neurologists what clinical attributes make their brand the best treatment for MS.
The guide provides a detailed examination of which brands are most effective, which are the safest and, in short, which is the most ideal MS treatment. Additionally, this information details neurologists’ perceptions of each existing MS brand’s strengths and weaknesses.
Overview of Neurologists’ Perceptions of the Best Treatment for MS
As neurologists evaluate their options to treat multiple sclerosis, they need to weigh each drug’s strengths and weaknesses to determine which is the best treatment for MS patients. The data and analysis shared in this report illustrate how each MS brand’s clinical attributes contribute to neurologists’ perceptions of the drug.
The data in Multiple Sclerosis Rational Brand Perceptions analyzes each brand’s critical clinical attributes:
- Efficacy
- Safety
- Dosing
- Tolerability
- Access
- Support
Branded Treatments Analyzed
- Aubagio
- Bafiertam
- Gilenya
- Kesimpta
- Lemtrada
- Mavenclad
- Mayzent
- Ocrevus
- Ponvory
- Tysabri
- Tecfidera
- Vumerity
- Zeposia
Strategic Questions Answered about Multiple Sclerosis Rational Brand Perceptions
- Clinical Perceptions: How do physicians perceive current MS brands in terms of their efficacy, safety, dosing, tolerability, access, and support?
- Brand Ownership: Which MS brands are perceived to be best vs. worst across efficacy, safety, dosing, tolerability, access, and support?
- Attribute Importance: Which clinical product attributes are most important to physicians when choosing among MS treatments?
Summary of Strategic Insights around Multiple Sclerosis Rational Brand Perceptions
- Ocrevus has very strong perceptions, and Neuros identify the brand as being closest to an ‘ideal’ MS treatment due to strong efficacy, tolerability and safety.
- Tysabri and Lemtrada have, by far, the least favorable perceptions of their safety profiles due to their risk of infections.
- MS is very much an efficacy driven paradigm, but safety is not far behind as a primary decision driver. Ocrevus checks both boxes.
Benefits of Purchasing Multiple Sclerosis Rational Brand Perceptions
- Cost-efficient data on HCPs’ multiple sclerosis brand perceptions to support your commercial strategy decisions.
- Multiple sclerosis brand perceptions and 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
Research Methodology: Robust Insights from US Neurologists – 6
The Strategic Six: Key Insights About Rational Perceptions of Multiple Sclerosis Brands – 7
MS Clinical Brand Perception Winners – 8
MS Clinical Brand
Perception Landscape – 9
Multiple Sclerosis Clinical Brand Attributes – 10
- Most Ideal Multiple Sclerosis Brands – 11
- Least Ideal Multiple Sclerosis Brands – 12
- Most Efficacious Multiple Sclerosis Brands – 13
- Least Efficacious Multiple Sclerosis Brands – 14
- Most Favorable Safety Profile Among MS Brands – 15
- Least Favorable Safety Profile Among MS Brands – 16
- Easiest Dosing Among MS Brands – 17
- Most Challenging Dosing Among MS Brands – 18
- Best Tolerability Among Multiple Sclerosis Brands – 19
- Worst Tolerability Among Multiple Sclerosis Brands – 20
- Best Access Among Multiple Sclerosis Brands – 21
- Worst Access Among Multiple Sclerosis Brands – 22
- Best Support Among Multiple Sclerosis Brands – 23
- Worst Support Among Multiple Sclerosis Brands – 24
Multiple Sclerosis Brand Profiles – 25
Ocrevus Brand Profile – 26
- Ocrevus Most/Least Ideal – 27
- Ocrevus Strengths – 28
- Ocrevus Weaknesses – 29
- Ocrevus Summary – 30
Kesimpta Brand Profile – 31
- Kesimpta Most/Least Ideal – 32
- Kesimpta Strengths – 33
- Kesimpta Weaknesses – 34
- Kesimpta Summary – 35
Aubagio Brand Profile – 36
- Aubagio Most/Least Ideal – 37
- Aubagio Strengths – 38
- Aubagio Weaknesses – 39
- Aubagio Summary – 40
Gilenya Brand Profile – 41
- Gilenya Most/Least Ideal – 42
- Gilenya Strengths – 43
- Gilenya Weaknesses – 44
- Gilenya Summary – 45
Tysabri Brand Profile – 46
- Tysabri Most/Least Ideal – 47
- Tysabri Strengths – 48
- Tysabri Weaknesses – 49
- Tysabri Summary – 50
Tecfidera Brand Profile – 51
- Tecfidera Most/Least Ideal – 52
- Tecfidera Strengths – 53
- Tecfidera Weaknesses – 54
- Tecfidera Summary – 55
Zeposia Brand Profile – 56
- Zeposia Most/Least Ideal – 57
- Zeposia Strengths – 58
- Zeposia Weaknesses – 59
- Zeposia Summary – 60
Vumerity Brand Profile – 61
- Vumerity Most/Least Ideal – 62
- Vumerity Strengths – 63
- Vumerity Weaknesses – 64
- Vumerity Summary – 65
Mayzent Brand Profile – 66
- Mayzent Most/Least Ideal – 67
- Mayzent Strengths – 68
- Mayzent Weaknesses – 69
- Mayzent Summary – 70
Lemtrada Brand Profile – 71
- Lemtrada Most/Least Ideal – 72
- Lemtrada Strengths – 73
- Lemtrada Weaknesses – 74
- Lemtrada Summary – 75
Bafiertam Brand Profile – 76
- Bafiertam Most/Least Ideal – 77
- Bafiertam Strengths – 78
- Bafiertam Weaknesses – 79
- Bafiertam Summary – 80
Mavenclad Brand Profile – 81
- Mavenclad Most/Least Ideal – 82
- Mavenclad Strengths – 83
- Mavenclad Weaknesses – 84
- Mavenclad Summary – 85
Ponvory Brand Profile – 86
- Ponvory Most/Least Ideal – 87
- Ponvory Strengths – 88
- Ponvory Weaknesses – 89
- Ponvory Summary – 90
Attribute Importance & Brand Ownership – 91
- Importance Attributes in Rx Decisions – 92
- Efficacy Importance Rank – 93
- Safety Importance Rank – 94
- Access Importance Rank – 95
- Tolerability Importance Rank – 96
- Dosing Importance Rank – 97
- Support Importance Rank – 98
Contact – 99
