ArticleJournal of comparative effectiveness research2025
The need to consider market access for pharmaceutical investment decisions: a primer.
Article in Journal of comparative effectiveness research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- When Side Effects Become Therapies: A Mechanistic Taxonomy of Adverse Drug Reactions as Translational Signals for Drug Repositioning.Fundamental & clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
- Access in all areas? A round-up of developments in market access and health technology assessment: part 11.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Article
- How much do ex-US revenues make a difference for pharmaceutical investment returns?Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Article
- Inflation reduction act impact on pharmaceutical investment: insights from investor interviews.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- Access in all areas? A round up of developments in market access and health technology assessment: part 8.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biotech/Pharma investors employ valuation methods to support capital deployment that consider the costs of drug development, projected sales and risks of failure. Often, the major focus for valuation is placed on the likely success rates of taking a compound from phase I to regulatory approval, with the notion being that just by obtaining regulatory approval sales will follow. However, as exemplified by recent cases with hemophilia gene therapies, achieving forecasted sales depends not only on regulatory success but crucially on market access outcomes. This primer examines how pharmaceutical investment decisions must consider market access factors, particularly in light of recent regulatory changes such as the US Inflation Reduction Act and European Union Joint Clinical Assessment. Effective market access strategies can enhance commercial success through better pricing, broader reimbursement, and/or faster uptake, and having a clear market access plan should encourage investment by providing a clearer path to commercial success. As health technology assessment processes become more sophisticated globally, treating market access as an essential strategic capability rather than a tactical exercise will be important for attracting investment and ultimately, successful drug development and commercialization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.