P
ProHub
English 简体中文 繁體中文
Medium Strategy Product Prioritization

Allergy Pharma

#Life Sciences #Pharmaceuticals
ProHub Comment

This case tests the candidate's ability to develop a strategic framework for product prioritization in a cash-constrained biotech environment. The mathematical component reveals equal revenue potential between both indications, forcing the candidate to recognize that development stage and risk profile become the deciding factors. The case emphasizes practical business reasoning beyond quantitative analysis—understanding the company's constraints drives the final recommendation.

Estimated Time 15 minutes
Difficulty Medium
Source Cornell
50 / 100

Our client, AllergyPharma is a small specialty pharmaceutical company that develops novel therapies for allergies affecting the nose (allergic rhinitis or AR) and lungs/chest airways (allergic asthma or AA). Our client has one product in Phase II clinical trials for AR and AA, called AP-1. With no products on the market, they do not generate significant revenue.

AP-1 is administered to the patient as an injection in a physician’s office. A full course of AP-1 therapy is 7 consecutive days of AP-1 injections. Phase II clinical trials show that when a full course of AP-1 therapy is administered to patients, symptoms of AR and AA are improved. The data in AR are strong enough for AP-1 to advance to Phase III trials for AR; however, an additional Phase II study would be required in AA before potentially moving onto Phase III trials for AA. Improvements in AR and AA symptoms were observed one month after the full course of AP-1 therapy. By following these patients over time, the client was able to demonstrate that improvements in AR and AA symptoms lasted for 1 year without the need for additional AP-1 treatments.

The client can only afford to pursue one disease indication at a time, though if they are successful in one, it is very likely they will be able to raise enough money to pursue the other indication as well. The client has hired us to help them to decide which indication to pursue first.

What factors should the team consider when prioritizing the two indications?

Clarifying Information

  1. The number of patients afflicted with each disease
  2. The percentage of patients with each disease that would likely take AP-1 vs. another therapy
  3. Expected pricing for AP-1 in each disease indication
  4. The strength of AP-1’s value proposition in each disease indication (e.g., level of unmet need for a new therapy, ability of AP-1 to address unmet needs, how AP-1 compares to other therapies in effectiveness, safety, and dosing convenience)
  5. Competitive intensity (i.e., the number of competing therapies on the market and in development)
  6. AP-1’s level of advancement in clinical trials for each disease indication (i.e., it is through Phase II in AR, but still in Phase II in AA)
  7. Rate of addressable patient population growth in each disease indication
  8. Degree of clinical / regulatory hurdles (e.g., size, length, and ease of clinical trials, precedence for FDA approval) and development timing, costs, and risks for each disease indication
  9. Promotional requirements (e.g., size of sales force required to promote the drug, number and concentration of physicians to which the client would need to market AP-1)