On Oncologists' "Perceptions" -- Of Various Drugmakers... For What It Is Worth...

Well -- first (as ever), the caveats: this is a small survey -- and likely not truly a random one. I am pretty convinced that the "diversity of drug candidates" in a company's stable (or R&D pipeline) matters far less to oncologists, than the efficacy profiles of even just one single juggernaut drug -- in driving therapy choices. [Doctors, said more bluntly, do not write prescriptions based on any R&D pipeline that might be yet a decade off.]

So, to the extent that some parts of this survey results piece read more like a Wall Street investors' analysis sheet -- I'd tend to discount it.

What matters (to present-day pharma revenue-trend levels) is. . . prescribing patterns, by thousands of real oncologists -- world-, and nation-wide, today. [That is, there is a very solid reason that Keytruda is the top selling drug worldwide, now.] In any event, here's that story -- from Fierce:

. . .ZoomRx measures perceptions from oncologists using a scoring system out of 100 across 30 major cancer drugmakers. The 100 score comes from a weighted system of five core areas, namely: promotion metrics; patient-centricity; reputation; innovation; and HCP-centricity.

Merck scored 80 out of 100, narrowly beating second-placed AstraZeneca by one point. AstraZeneca “emerges as a strong challenger,” the analysts report, given its more diverse portfolio than Merck from its drugs Tagrisso, Lynparza, Enhertu, Calquence and Imfinzi. It’s also seen recent positive trial results in experimental cancer therapies. . . .

There was a large drop to Bristol Myers Squibb in third with 62 points, with ZoomRx noting that BMS “struggles with innovation.” Its big cancer immunotherapies Opdivo and Yervoy “remain strong” in the eyes of doctors, but the company's acquired drugs from its M&A deals “haven't delivered significant results,” the analysts said. . . .

Now you know. Onward, to a sunny mid-week taco truck. Grin.

नमस्ते