Legal & Regulatory

Traceability

Trade & Brand Protection

Brand & Product Security

Business and Finance

Containers & Shippers

Devices

Software

Cold Chain

Commercial Channels

Artificial Intelligence

Digitalization

Real World Data

Data & Technology

Manufacturing & Packaging

Supply Chain

Logistics & Transportation

Commercialization

Pricing

Trade & Channel

Market Access

Opinion

Adherence

HUB Services

Patient Assistance Programs

Patient Support

News

Pharma Pulse

Academy

Publications

Partner Perspectives

Webcasts

Resources

Conferences

Conference Coverage

Conference Listing

Events

Videos

Peer Exchange

Podcasts

Editorial Podcasts

Subscribe

Pharmaceutical Commerce connects biopharma executives to insights on business processes, technologies, and strategies for taking approved drugs to market.

About Us

Advertise

Editorial

Contact Us

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Privacy Policy

Terms and Conditions

Pharmaceutical Commerce - Biopharma Business News, Market Insights

Instagram

Facebook

LinkedIn

Threads

Soundcloud

Spotlight

Digital Editions

Security

Asembia AXS25 Summit 

Topics

Data and Technology

Legal and Regulatory

Supply Chain Logistics

1rem

Articles

Agreement featuring UK pharma services consultancy intends to grow PharmaLex's pan-European market access presence

PharmaLex Merges with NeoHealthHub

While all drug development efforts are fraught with peril, a growing number of biopharma companies—large and small—are staking a claim in the rare disease treatment space, chasing odds that could yield clinical and financial rewards 

Betting the House on Orphan Drugs

How recent executive orders—both under the Biden and Trump administrations—have reshaped the drug pricing landscape, and the legal challenges or uncertainties they present for pharmaceutical companies

What life sciences companies should be doing now to proactively prepare for further executive action on drug pricing and market access

The key differences in how executive policies versus legislative actions affect the pharma industry’s pricing and commercialization strategies

The legal and strategic risks executive policy shifts pose to investors and biopharma leaders who may be planning product launches or portfolio expansion over the next few years

Alice Valder Curran outlines the steps manufacturers should take to better prepare for upcoming executive actions on drug pricing and market access.

How Recent Executive Orders Impact the Drug Pricing Landscape

 interview, Vibhu Tewary, project director, IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, discusses:

Highlights of the company’s report surrounding the “Long-term Market Sustainability for Infused Biosimilars in the US: Foundational Analytics on Emerging Risks to Sustainability”

The process that constructing and piecing together a report of this magnitude entails, along with where the idea itself came from

The ongoing challenges surrounding ASP-based reimbursement

A closed-door, multi-stakeholder virtual roundtable (based on his original report) that was previously held

Vibhu Tewary offers insight on this market segment, including a behind-the-scenes of what goes into designing a report. 

The Path Forward for Infused Biosimilars in the US

 interview, Mark Bouck, chairman and CEO of PharmAlliance, a pharmaceutical and life sciences services platform, dives into:

How PharmAlliance’s acquisition of Complete Health Economics Outcomes Research Solutions (CHEORS) helps expand global reach

The platform’s biggest goal to when it comes to CHEORS and market access services

How CHEORS helps navigate cost-effectiveness and market access hurdles

Acquisitions in the space that are currently in the works

Mark Bouck discusses PharmAlliance’s latest acquisitions, while reiterating its goals surrounding health economics and outcomes research.

Navigating Market Access Hurdles

 interview, Brandon Newman, Xevant’s CEO and founder, explores:

The implications of the Inflation Reduction Act’s price negotiation provisions, and how these could result in ripple effects across the healthcare system

The role that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and other intermediaries' play when it comes to determining drug costs, and how spread pricing is involved

How Xevant helps improve drug cost transparency efforts

Strategies for affordability Newman would offer the pharma industry that can be implemented immediately

Brandon Newman joins The Pharmaceutical Commerce Podcast to discuss the evolving role of PBMs, including the importance of drug price transparency. 

A Further Examination of Pharmacy Benefit Managers

Is the industry ready for the Aug. 1 deadline of when these levies go into effect?

As Trump Pharma Tariff Deadline Looms, Here's How the Sector Got Here

A JAMA Network Open study reveals that patients with private insurance can face monthly costs nearing $600 after a cancer diagnosis, highlighting the disparities based on cancer stage and calling for stronger financial support policies.

High Out-of-Pocket Costs Burden Privately Insured Cancer Patients, Study Finds

Kevin Chinn, vice president and head of the cell & gene therapy service line at Cencora, outlines why early planning, stakeholder engagement, and innovative access strategies are key to long-term CGT success.

How CGT Developers Can Overcome Market Access, Regulatory, and Commercialization Hurdles

The agreement grants LEO Pharma exclusive rights to the branded form of spesolimab for generalized pustular psoriasis and potentially, other IL-36–driven conditions.

LEO Pharma to Head Global Commercialization of Spevigo in $105M Deal with Boehringer Ingelheim

Engaging the full workforce—from HR to R&D—can elevate launch outcomes, build trust, and create long-term brand ambassadors.

Beyond the Brand Team: Why Every Employee Needs to Be Part of the Journey

Scaling Obesity Drugs Responsibly

, Hyung Heon Kim, CEO of MetaVia, describes how the current US payer ecosystem, including commercial insurers and Medicaid, exhibits a divided approach when it comes to supporting access to obesity medications. Coverage largely depends on whether obesity is accompanied by additional health complications. He explains that there are essentially two categories of patients: those who are obese without any complications and those who are overweight or obese with related conditions, such as type 2 diabetes or Metabolic Dysfunction-associated Steatohepatitis (MASH).

For patients who fall into the second category—those with complications—insurance coverage is typically available. This is because obesity-linked conditions like type 2 diabetes are recognized as serious health issues that require treatment. Payers are prepared to provide coverage in these cases, acknowledging the need for medical interventions that go beyond lifestyle changes alone.

However, for individuals who are obese but otherwise healthy, coverage remains limited. Kim highlights that the current administration does not fully recognize obesity as a disease on its own, instead viewing it as a condition that can be managed through lifestyle interventions, such as diet and exercise. This perspective means that insurance companies are less inclined to cover obesity medications for patients who do not have related health complications.

Kim suggests that this approach overlooks the broader benefits of proactive obesity treatment, which can prevent complications before they arise. While insurers and Medicaid seem prepared to handle cases with associated conditions, they are not yet structured to provide long-term affordability and access for individuals seeking preventive care solely for obesity. In essence, the payer ecosystem is ready for treatments tied to co-morbidities but lacks readiness and policy alignment for covering obesity medications in otherwise healthy patients.

ual-action metabolic therapies address clinical or tolerability gaps observed in first-generation GLP-1s; alternative reimbursement or value-based contracting models that could be feasible in the short term, given CMS’ decision not to finalize coverage for obesity medications in 2026; market dynamics or stakeholder misalignments that need to be resolved for next-generation weight-loss drugs to reach scale without overburdening payers (from a commercialization standpoint); and much more.

From a commercialization standpoint, what market dynamics or stakeholder misalignments need to be resolved in order for the next generation of weight-loss drugs to reach scale without overburdening payers?

I think the most important thing is, what is obesity and what do obesity patients look like. I think the biggest issue we still have is a perception that obesity is not a disease, but it is. I think once we get over that hurdle, I think things could be characterized or have a category of obesity patients, where the payers will cover these certain populations, they won't cover certain populations, and those need to be studied more.

We’re still talking about just obese, otherwise healthy people, but we're running another clinical trial, and one of the subjects I saw—she didn't enroll yet—but she's got a BMI of 40, and she's healthy. Amazing, isn't it? Like 105 kilograms. That's like 230, 240, 250 pounds. Height is about 5’5,’’ and she's healthy, Healthy, but obese—it's not about appearances, it’s not about the willpower. It's more like, yes, you are healthy, but she needs to lose weight. She needs to lose weight so that we don't incur additional insurance, social welfare into her once her health goes out. That's the approach. It's more preventive, rather than having type 2 with other complications. Those people really need the drug.

People who have issues of the cravings—it's not about willpower. On that side of the curve, it became their habit. It became their life. You just can't say eat less and exercise, because I'm pretty sure those people with more than 40 BMI but otherwise healthy, you start running, your knees are going to go, so they should lose weight and go into running or walking. These things need to really come into play of designing something for these patients who need the drug and not putting them on the drug forever, but rather, have a program where the insurance payers will say, okay, we'll give you the drug. We'll co-pay with you. You come down to 35 BMI. For example, if it's 40, 35, 33 BMI, now we're going to cut it, and you need to exercise. It's these kinds of programs that need to come into play and make sure that these people who actually do have a disease get a lot of help.

In the fourth part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Hyung Heon Kim, CEO of MetaVia, explains the market dynamics or stakeholder misalignments that need to be resolved in order for the next generation of weight-loss drugs to reach scale without overburdening payers.

Innovative Paths to Obesity Medication Access

dual-action metabolic therapies address clinical or tolerability gaps observed in first-generation GLP-1s; alternative reimbursement or value-based contracting models that could be feasible in the short term, given CMS’ decision not to finalize coverage for obesity medications in 2026; market dynamics or stakeholder misalignments that need to be resolved for next-generation weight-loss drugs to reach scale without overburdening payers (from a commercialization standpoint); and much more.

Given CMS’ decision not to finalize coverage for obesity meds in 2026, what alternative reimbursement or value-based contracting models could be feasible in the short term?

For obese, otherwise healthy patients, it is a challenge. But there are a lot of moving parts here, especially on the pharma side. When you look at Eli Lilly for example, when they first launched Mounjaro and Zepbound—let's say Zepbound, because that's for obesity. They had autoinjectors. Everyone was saying it's really expensive (insurance and all that). Then they came up with prefilled syringes, which made sense. Now, they're selling vials, dry powder vials, and people buy that, get it in their refrigerator, take it out. They actually mix it up and inject it by themselves.

Now, have you ever heard of any other drug doing it that way? I haven't really, because it's never been done before.

Everyone thought about compliance issues, but people are doing it because they want the drug, and that's the cheapest way to get it. Insurance-wise, if the coverage gets smaller and smaller for that population, the bigger and bigger the compounding, and those vials will go into sales and probably get much stronger. I think that's the point that people need to really think about. Is that really the right way to do it? People reaching out to third-party vendors when you don't even know what's in the vial. It's for public safety—it needs to be covered.

The way I'm hoping that everyone will approach it is that okay, if you want an autoinjector, no, we won't cover that. But if you're doing a vial, maybe we can cover something. Have a stepwise approach. If the patient is so desperate that they're actually doing the vials by themselves, I think they deserve coverage. To me, it feels like nowadays, it's more like the drug itself: is it covered or not? Maybe we need to go a little deeper into if the patient wants convenience, then maybe not. But if the patient is so willing to do those dry vials at home, then I think the insurance should cover it.

In the third part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Hyung Heon Kim, CEO of MetaVia, outlines alternative reimbursement or value-based contracting models that could be feasible in the short term, given CMS’ decision not to finalize coverage for obesity meds in 2026.

Can Dual Agonists Deliver Better Outcomes?

How can dual-action metabolic therapies address clinical or tolerability gaps observed in first-generation GLP-1s?

When you look at just GLP-1s, the leader there will be semaglutide (Wegovy). They have a long-term cardiovascular study out there, so it's the first-line obesity drug right now. Now, is that a great drug? Yes, it is. People lose weight, but still, they have a lot of complications with adverse events (AEs).

The reason it's important to go into this dual action or dual agonist is that the duals give you something else. When we go back to the first question, a lot of payers and things evolving requires something else from this obesity drug, other than losing just weight. I think the dualaction, dual agonist, is going to be the key in the upcoming future. Zepbound is a GLP-1, GIP, but when you look at the GIP itself, it really doesn't have its own unique mechanisms of action [MOAs] that will help obese people. But for like ours, which is glucagon, it actually has completely two different mechanisms of action which can help obese people with losing weight, plus helping them out with better fat lean mass changes; they can lose more of the waste, they can get a little more energy burn, and those things come into play.

The other important point is that all these dual agonists are not the same. Of course, it's patent protected, so it should be different, but it's the ratio between the GLP-1 and glucagon, and the more we go into this dual agonist area, the more adverse events happen, because when you have two unique mechanisms of action, each of the MOAs can have their own AEs. For glucagon, we have similar issues with GLP-1s, vomiting and things like that. That's one of the reasons why the more advanced drugs will have more than 20% dropouts from clinical trials, because people can't tolerate it. That’s where that balance come into play.

In the second part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Hyung Heon Kim, CEO of MetaVia, explains how dual-action metabolic therapies can address clinical or tolerability gaps observed in first-generation GLP-1s.

The Ripple Effect of 200% Tariffs on US Drug Supply and Pricing

, Brad Stewart, BDO’s national life sciences co-leader, describes how a proposed 200% tariff on pharmaceutical imports could have significant short- and long-term impacts on US drug manufacturing and distribution, with immediate concerns focused on the stability of the generic drug market. According to Stewart, generic drugs make up the majority of medications used in the United States, but they are highly vulnerable to shortages because many become sole-source products after their initial launch. Within a few years of going generic, multiple manufacturers often consolidate into a single supplier due to limited demand and low margins. This leaves the supply chain fragile, as any disruption—such as shortages of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), manufacturing conflicts, or facility issues—can quickly lead to supply gaps. The pandemic underscored these vulnerabilities.

In the short term, Stewart warns that a 200% tariff would exacerbate these challenges by increasing the costs of imported generics, which are critical for maintaining affordable drug access. This could limit availability and raise costs for patients, providers, and insurers, leading to potential shortages and higher out-of-pocket expenses.

Longer term, tariffs of this magnitude would likely drive a rise in overall drug prices in the United States. Companies would have little choice but to pass on increased costs to consumers, insurers, and healthcare systems. While patients might not feel the impact immediately due to insurers absorbing costs, premiums, and healthcare charges would eventually rise.

Stewart emphasizes that reshoring pharmaceutical manufacturing is not a quick fix. Building new manufacturing facilities or scaling domestic production requires a long lead time—typically three to five years—and involves complex regulatory and logistical challenges. As a result, while tariffs may encourage companies to explore onshoring, significant capacity expansion is unlikely to occur in the near term.

Stewart also comments on the internal constraints that nearly a quarter of life sciences CFOs are reporting as their biggest manufacturing obstacle; how artificial intelligence can help support pharma leaders in managing their supply chains; and much more.

What immediate and long-term impacts could a 200% tariff on pharmaceutical imports have on US drug manufacturing and distribution operations?

To get to a 200% tariff being implemented and what the impacts would be, I think both short and long term, they're pretty easy to see, and most of them probably don't result in a massive growth in US drug manufacturing in the next several years. That’s something that's very hard to do with drug manufacturing, and we'll talk about why in a minute, but probably in the short term, I think the biggest concern I would have is around generic drugs.

That's really one of the areas that I think people don't realize is probably one of the most unstable parts of drug infrastructure for the United States—generic drugs very commonly these days end up being sole-source medications. For the first six to 12 months that a drug becomes generic, there might be multiple manufacturers, but unless they're incredibly high volume, they tend to become sole source over the first couple of years, and we see what happens now with drug shortages. We saw this quite a bit during the pandemic.

It's not uncommon for a drug—maybe the active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API—to end up in shortage. There's conflict with what else they're trying to manufacture—they can't produce the volume or maybe there're facility issues. I think short term, that's really what I worry about, is just not having access to generic drugs, which are by far the vast majority of the drugs that people in United States take. Long term, longer term, or maybe midterm, it's definitely going to raise drug prices the United States. Companies will probably have no choice but to raise prices with a 200% tariff. That'll start to impact what people pay out of pocket, what they pay for health insurance, what hospitals are charging, those sorts of things.

Maybe you don't see it in your co-payment right away because your insurer is having to absorb that until they raise your premiums in the next benefit season, but I think in the longer term, that's where companies really are going to have to try and figure out if there are opportunities for them to onshore parts of their pharmaceutical production and those sorts of things. As I started to say before, those are very long term, very challenging decisions. These are typically three-plus years to three to five years, probably most honestly, to try and build and open up a manufacturing facility.

In the first part of his video interview with Pharma Commerce Editor Nicholas Saraceno, Brad Stewart, BDO’s national life sciences co-leader, describes the immediate and long-term impacts of this potential levy on pharma imports.

Coverage Gaps and Challenges Ahead for Obesity Drugs

dual-action metabolic therapies address clinical or tolerability gaps observed in first-generation GLP-1s; alternative reimbursement or value-based contracting models that could be feasible in the short term, given CMS’ decision not to finalize coverage for obesity medications in 2026; market dynamics or stakeholder misalignments that need to be resolved for next-generation weight-loss drugs to reach scale without overburdening payers (from a commercialization standpoint)

As utilization of obesity medications has surged in recent years, how prepared is the current US payer ecosystem—including commercial insurers and Medicaid—to support broader access and long-term affordability for these therapies?

You have to group it into two different buckets. Bucket number one is just obese people without any complications. Then, you have another bucket. Typically for overweight, you accompany other complications, like type 2 diabetes, MASH [or Metabolic Dysfunction-associated Steatohepatitis], and it goes on. When you look at the current insurance payers, when you have type 2 diabetes due to obesity, then your medication is actually covered.

With people who are overweight or obese with other complications, I think everyone's ready for it. It's just that if you're obese and very healthy—I don't know how that works—but if that is the case, then it's just like us. The companies don't really cover it. Under the current administration, I think they're saying that obesity is not a disease, you have to eat less and exercise. I think you have to look at it from a different angle. If you're looking at just obese, but healthy, I don't think anyone's really ready for it. Other complications, yes, everyone's ready for it.

In the first part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Hyung Heon Kim, CEO of MetaVia, describes the US payer ecosystem’s level of preparedness to support broader access and long-term affordability for these therapies.

How Competition, Access, and Reimbursement Will Shape the Next Wave of Innovation

, Murray Aitken, executive director of the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, explains the extensive process behind developing the “Global Use of Medicines Outlook Through 2029” report. The creation of this comprehensive resource spans several months and integrates proprietary IQVIA datasets, including the MIDAS (Market Intelligence Data Analytics Solution), market prognosis, and forecast link tools. The report combines robust data analytics with global expert insights to produce a holistic view of the pharmaceutical landscape.

Aitken emphasizes that a key part of the process involves gathering input from IQVIA’s network of experts across the world, each bringing localized perspectives on evolving trends in medicine use, access, and policy. These expert insights are then synthesized by an internal analytics team responsible for compiling the vast volume and value data.

In terms of metrics, the report estimates that 3.6 trillion defined daily doses of medicines were consumed globally in the past year. Additionally, the worldwide expenditure on medicines is projected to be approximately $1.8 trillion at list prices in 2024. Aitken notes that while there are some data gaps, IQVIA’s methodology includes filling in missing information using statistically sound models and expert validation.

The ultimate goal of the report is to provide all healthcare stakeholders—governments, policy makers, pharma executives, and researchers—with a clear, data-driven understanding of where medicines are being used, how frequently, and at what cost. Aitken concludes by expressing pride in his team’s efforts and the value the report brings in shaping discussions around global health policy, drug affordability, and resource allocation.

He also comments on how pharma companies should revise their market access and pricing models to align with the evolving landscape; strategies manufacturers should adopt to balance investment in innovation with lifecycle management in order to maintain sustainable growth; how the competitive landscape will evolve within these high-impact therapeutic areas, the role patient access and reimbursement play in shaping adoption; what he anticipates for the biosimilar adoption curve in key markets over the next five years; and much more.

The report identifies obesity, oncology, and immunology as key contributors to global spending growth through 2029. How do you see the competitive landscape evolving within these high-impact therapeutic areas, and what role will patient access and reimbursement play in shaping adoption?

So obesity is the one that obviously gets a lot of public attention. This area is going to be very competitive very quickly. We have two companies competing there now, but we see a very extensive pipeline of new mechanisms, new formulations, new indications being developed for not only GLP-1s, but again, many other mechanisms as well. We can see 173 molecules in active development in the pipeline. They're not all going to make it to market, but enough will to make this a highly competitive marketplace. We should also recognize that currently, most of these obesity drugs are not reaching the patients who will benefit the most from them, so we've still got this big opportunity to help patients with weight loss who will benefit from it, in terms of reduced incidence of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and many other diseases as well.

Reimbursement is still a barrier in this case, I'm confident that we have enough clinical data coming through showing the efficacy, benefits, and value of these medicines that we will see reimbursement opening up over the next several years. I also see so much competition coming through the pipeline that we'll see prices being reduced from their current levels, and those two might happen simultaneously. This is going to be a very dynamic space. It's a big market, but more importantly, it's a transformational therapy area, and I think we're only seeing the very beginnings of what impact that will have.

In the case of oncology, this is already by far the largest therapy area, and we expect that growth will continue. We can see about 100 new oncology drugs will be launched over the next five years. It's become very competitive. It's also become very much a precision medicine area. That brings some complications—the need and reimbursement for diagnostics, in addition to the therapeutics, is something that in some parts of the world is still very much a problem. There's still significant unmet need. We're going to see continued demand for these new drugs.

The other dynamic, though, is that we are seeing the loss of exclusivity beginning within the next five years, particularly of pembrolizumab, which is the largest oncology drug. We expect that will lose exclusivity in the 2028, 2029, 2030 period, so we are forecasting actually a slowdown in the growth rate in spending on oncology medicines, partly driven by that loss of exclusivity. In fact, we're forecasting that on a global basis, growth will fall under 10% by 2028-2029, and even less in in the important US market. There are some dynamics playing out there.

In terms of immunology, we still have significant unmet need. It's a competitive market, but we are seeing the impact of the losses of exclusivity of some of the larger leading products, such as adalimumab, that's also bringing down the growth rate in spending on these medicines. It's also heightening the competitiveness in this space, the need for companies to bring forward evidence that differentiates their drugs, perhaps in narrower sub populations, rather just at the overall market level.

In the final part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Murray Aitken, executive director, IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, details how he sees the competitive landscape evolving

The Biosimilar Void

Despite the strong pipeline of innovation, biosimilars continue to deliver significant cost offsets, especially in mature markets. What do you anticipate for the biosimilar adoption curve in key markets moving forward?

Over the last five years in the US, we've had some issues in terms of the way in which the biosimilar market has evolved. In the case of the Part B drugs, hospital-infused drugs, and so on, we have the pricing mechanism that is really not designed for biosimilars, and which is driving costs and prices down in the marketplace to the point where they may be actually too low. For Part D drugs, we have formulary management that goes on by the PBMs, which in some cases, is restricting access to the lower-cost biosimilars. These are distortions in the market that we think are not ideal, and they should be addressed in order for biosimilars to play a key role.

In Europe, we have a version of the same sort of mechanisms where pricing has been driven to very low levels, to the extent that we now have what we are referring to as the biosimilar void. This is when we look in the pipeline of new biosimilars being invested in by similar manufacturers for the next wave of biologics that will lose exclusivity, we see a lot of gaps. We see a void. We're not seeing as much investment, both in the manufacturing capacity or in the R&D to bring new biosimilars into the market.

That lack of investment means there will be less competition from biosimilars, and ultimately, that isn't desirable for the health system, for patients, and I think it's something that does need to be addressed rather urgently, so that we can create an environment where biosimilars have an important, meaningful role to play in the context of the overall system.

In the fourth part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Murray Aitken, executive director, IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, outlines what he anticipates for the biosimilar adoption curve in key markets moving forward.

Balancing Innovation and Lifecycle Strategy in the Era of the IRA 

What strategies should manufacturers adopt to balance investment in innovation with lifecycle management, in order to maintain sustainable growth?

There's always this balance between how much are you investing in the novel, breakthrough therapies and how much are you investing in maintaining presence of some of the older drugs, particularly as they lose exclusivity. I sort of come back to the fact that manufacturers overall have really been doubling down on their strategic focus on innovation. If you look across the largest companies over the last five, 10 years, they've all narrowed their focus in on innovative medicines, and ultimately, that's where they believe their sustained success is going to come from.

That being said, when a drug loses exclusivity, of course, that’s where we see the introduction of generics or biosimilars. I think we do see different strategies by different companies. Some definitely try to cling on to the originator drug as long as they can, and through contracting and other mechanisms, maintain that share; others are trying to migrate patients on to the next generation of innovation. I think at the end of the day, those companies that are focused on innovation should focus on innovation, and when a drug comes to the end of its life, recognize that and also recognize the important role that generics and biosimilars do play in creating a sustainable marketplace for both new and old medicines.

There’s a new factor here in the equation, and that of course, is the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as it applies to the US, where we now have this finite period—nine years for small molecules, 13 years for biologics—before a maximum fair price may be determined for your drug by CMS. That's clearly putting more pressure on manufacturers to achieve the return on their investment in innovation within that window, and we know that this is affecting the strategy for companies, both when they introduce their drugs, but then also as they manage the lifecycle, because of the finite duration that they that they have under the IRA.

In the third part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Murray Aitken, executive director, IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, explains the strategies that manufacturers should adopt to balance investment in innovation with lifecycle management.

How Pharma Must Evolve in a Competitive Therapeutic Landscape

The report reveals a shift from volume-driven to mix-driven spending, including a move toward more expensive, higher‑value therapies across regions. How should pharma companies revise their market access and pricing models to align with this evolving landscape?

One of the things that we see happening in the global market is the increased use of the 1,000 new drugs that have been launched over the last 20 years. We still have a lot of medicines older than 20 years that are driving volume, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, but also in high-income countries to some extent, but it's that 1,000 novel active substances that have been launched over the last 20 years that are driving a lot of the growth, which is where we see this shift in the mix of drugs being used.

What that means for manufacturers, is that it's a much more competitive environment than it was five, 10, or 20 years ago. There're a lot of other novel drugs out there, so that all comes back to the quality of the clinical evidence, the real-world evidence about the safety and efficacy of the drugs, not only on average for all patients, but for some populations of patients.

Generating that evidence is critically important, and then educating and communicating with healthcare professionals becomes a much more focused and tailored effort than it used to be because of this level of competition. This is where we see digital and AI being incorporated to really be very precise about the messaging that gets delivered to specific healthcare professionals at specific times of the day and in certain settings, so I think these are really driving shift towards better medicines for more patients.

In the second part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Murray Aitken, executive director, IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, suggests how pharma companies should revise their market access and pricing models to align with the evolving landscape.

From Data to Insight: Forecasting Global Medicine Use 

Could you describe the process behind developing this “Global Use of Medicines Outlook Through 2029” report?

In preparing this kind of report, it takes several months, of course, to pull this content together. In the case of the “Global Use of Medicines Report,” we're drawing on some of IQVIA’s proprietary data and offerings, including the MIDAS [Market Intelligence Data Analytics Solution] dataset, market prognosis, and forecast link. We also draw upon our experts around the world. We've got thought leaders in every corner of the world monitoring the global markets, so we bring them together for a discussion about some of the key themes from their perspective, and then we have an analytics team that works on pulling together all of the data. We have to fill in some of the data gaps that we have, but that's the way that we get to measure the market.

In terms of volume, the 3.6 trillion defined daily doses of medicines that were used last year, as well as to calculate the total value of the market, the amount being spent on medicines, that we estimate at about $1.8 trillion at list prices in 2024. Pulling that all together is a big undertaking. We've got a lot of hard-working people within our team who work on that, and it's always a great delight to finally get it published and out into the public domain so it can be used by all stakeholders to have a better understanding of how medicines are being used, where they're being used in the world, and the cost of those medicines as well.

In the first part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Murray Aitken, executive director, IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, describes the process behind developing the “Global Use of Medicines Outlook Through 2029” report.

Market Access

Latest News

More News