Digital marketing loses against traditional interaction with HCPs says Cegedim Strategic Data (CSD). According to the study called Global Promotions Audit, traditional interactions are still much more common and more efficient in impact on prescription behavior.
To be honest, such a result is completely against what we preach at K-message. Digital tactics are supposed to reach wider audience, and properly executed can change behavior efficiently. What is more, we know that efficiency of digital can be measured.
CSD’s study, at the first sight, says otherwise. Why is that?
CSD collects data from physicians in Top 5 EU, USA, Japan, Brazil, Russia, China, Belgium, Canada and Poland. The research is part of syndicated panel, and respondents are physicians from primary and secondary care disciplines.
Obviously, digital maturity of surveyed markets differs, and CSD provides results by country. Even in the most advanced Japan, only 34% of contacts is classified as digital. For USA it is 24%, Poland 20%. Other countries have much lower proportion of digital interaction – Germany 5%, Brazil, Italy and Russia 2%, China just 1%.

This has to skew results. We do not know the size of the sample of German or Chinese HCPs, but even if it is 100 doctors per country, we cannot say anything relevant about impact of any factor that affected only few respondents in the group.
From CSD data, we can see that in 11 of 13 markets, a predominant channel of digital interaction with HCPs is emailing. This again puts digital in unfavorable light. Does an e-mail from sales rep counts as an interaction with HCP? Can we reasonably expect that e-mail alone will change HCPs decision for prescriptions? We should not, and this brings another surprise.
The most positive impact of digital interaction on prescription is declared in Canada where 55.6% of digital interactions led to positive intention to start or increase prescribing promoted brand. The most skeptical towards the digital were doctors from France, still 17.1% of those declared positive impacts.
CSD says that in every country impact of traditional interaction with HCPs was higher than for digital. But what are we comparing here? It is an email campaign versus face to face and telephone detailing, on-site meeting or event, delivery of printed materials.
Those results mean that HCPs should receive a proper, multi-channel campaign that combines e-mail (automated with marketing automation tools), remote detailing, on-site events supported with webcasts, websites that allow rich interaction and include order form for additional materials in print or in automated detailing.
CSD’s story is that their result shows a need for more of traditional approach. This is simply impossible due to market environment. But it would not be smart either. What we read from the data is that emailing alone can bring 20 to 50% impact on prescription, so pharmaceutical marketing job is to invest more in multichannel approach.
Success in pharmaceutical industry depends on innovation. We are in the constant race with mutating microbes, viruses and cells. New regulations, stakeholders and disruptive competitors are changing industry landscape every day.

At the recent Pharma Customer Experience Management Summit in Berlin, where I was one of the speakers, the innovation was a leitmotif. One particularly strong accord was played by Alexander Simidchiev from GSK. In his presentation, Customer-Centric Approach in Pharma: Future of Healthcare?, Alex has pointed out what I believe is the best approach to smart innovation in pharmaceutical marketing.
Inspired by Daniel Burrus’ methodology described in the book Flash Foresight, Alex advises pharma marketers to look for the “hard trends”.
[box type=”info” ]
Hard trend is a projection based on measurable, tangible, and fully predictable facts, events, or objects. It is something that will happen: a future fact that cannot be changed.
[/box]
In the day to day practice of pharma marketing we can often see urge to innovate based on the opposition of the hard trend. Something, that Burrus would call a “soft trend”, something, that only might happen.
[box type=”info” ]
Soft trend is a projection based on statistics that have the appearance of being tangible, fully predictable facts. It’s something that might happen: a future maybe.
[/box]
Such “soft trend” is easy to be sold by marketers and consultants. You may hear that we should go mobile (the smartphones are on the rise, aren’t they?). You may learn, that eDetailing on tablets is a must (everyone has an iPad, buy one too, quickly!).
It is not a bad thing to identify such soft trends and use them for your innovation. The thing is, however, that soft trend can be influenced and changed. It is the change of this trend that innovator should capitalize on. Followers of those soft trends risk being punished with the next disruption.
However, such approach is not enough. As Alexander Simidchiev said, basing on his experience in pharmaceutical industry, for K-message.com:
Most of what I currently percieve is cosmetic changes in the industry which has changed little since the hayday of anilin based medical wonders, currently addressing mainly short term priorities and tactical issues. The result is that the industry chronically suffers from suboptimal reputation, and we are always “on the back foot” trying to defend past practices, instead of treading the virgin soil (together with other partners and stakeholders) of how to overcome the current challenges facing the healthcare system, for which (my personal deep belief) pharma is one of the possible, if not dominantly positive solutions. This requires that current marketing practices refocus from talking product to joint solutions for societal needs.
To be prepared for what will happen, you need to look at hard trends. This will not change, and it provides a solid foundation for growth. Hard trends are derived from demographics, regulations and technological advances (in terms of growth of “three digital accelerators”: processing power, storage and bandwidth).
Alexander Simidchiev in his presentation has applied this approach to look at pharmaceutical industry. Hard trends derived from demographics facts are stunning. Simple combination of current knowledge of age profiles for public expenditure on healthcare in EU countries (how much is spend for the healthcare of people in certain age), with data on ageing of the population shows, that current system cannot be sustainable in the near future.
![Age profiles for public expenditure in health. Economic Policy Committee (2001) “Budgetary challenges posed by ageing populations” p. 34 [PDF]. An arrrow added by K-message.com](http://3.122.255.92/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/age-spending-healthcare.png)
Those are hard trends, not guesses, and pharma marketers have to face it or their companies will struggle. We need to be prepared for dramatic shift in our business model, with less money for much bigger population in public healthcare system. We have to use digital channels to be understood by new generation of HCPs, and to provide information the new, digitally savvy patients.
It is not about nice mobile apps or shiny presentations on iPad. It is about the future. As Alexander Simidchiev, quoting Peter Drucker, has closed his presentation: The best way to predict the future is to create it.
Dallas Buyers Club is a powerful movie. Based on true story of Ron Woodroof it shows how patient has to fight the system instead of receiving a treatment for the deadly disease. Everything seems to ally against suffering patient. Health Care Professionals driven by greed offer inefficient therapy under strict clinical trial regime. FDA officers are enforcing cruel regulations confiscating “illegal” but life-saving medications. Even the judge from liberal California, although compassionate is forceless. Dallas Buyers Club is a coalition of suffering people turned into outlaws for trying to save their lives.
Is pharmaceutical industry and its regulators really so cruel? Why Woodroof and his club were persecuted instead of receiving help? Is it possible that such story happens today with some other disease?

Clinical Trials – Why Ron could not get AZT in the proper dose in the hospital.
At the moment depicted in the Dallas Buyers Club, AZT (zidovudine, also known as azidothymidine, trade name Retrovir) in the U.S. was in the clinical research, probably in Phase III of the process.

[box type=”info” ]
Phases of Clinical Research
[checklist]
- Phase 0: The first in-human research of new drug is called an exploratory investigational new-drug study or phase 0 study. It is done before traditional phase I trials. Smaller than therapeutic doses of a new drug are given to a small group of patients (typically fewer than 15) for roughly a week to determine pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties.
- Phase I: Researchers test a new drug or treatment in a small group of healthy volunteers for the first time to evaluate its safety, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects.
- Phase II: The drug or treatment is given to a larger group (about 100 -300) of people who have the disease or condition that the product potentially could treat. In this phase researchers see if the medicine is effective and are able to further evaluate its safety.
- Phase III: The drug or treatment is given to large groups (1000 to 3000) of people to confirm its effectiveness, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the drug or treatment to be used safely.
- Phase IV: Studies are done after the drug or treatment has been marketed to gather information on the drug’s effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use.
[/checklist]
[/box]
Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials generally involve a “control” standard. It means that some of the participants do not get tested substance, but inactive placebo or other, existing treatment if available. To avoid any bias, there is a special process to randomly decide who gets a tested substance, called randomization. At this point no one knows if the new therapy is efficient or maybe dangerous, so getting placebo is not necessarily worse option. Additional process to avoid bias in the results of the research is called blinding. Single-blinding means, that patients do not know whether they are treated with tested substance. Even better procedure, double-blinding means that also the research team does not know who receives what. Patient is informed about the substance s/he receives only at the specified time of the study, when it cannot impact the results.
Due to this procedures, it is not possible for patient to decide a dosage or even to be sure that the specific drug is given. In the story of Dallas Buyers Club, Ramona starred by Jared Leto could not be sure that her medicine is AZT and not just placebo.
Clinical studies are necessary to identify adequate dosage and eliminate risks that could overwhelm benefits of new therapy. There is always limited number of participating patients with specific conditions, so it takes long time to gather representative sample and see the results of the study. The whole process takes years to be completed, but it is needed to approve new drug to be available on the market.
Expanded access – Would it be possible to import medicine for Ron legally?
AIDS patients could not wait for clinical trials, this is why Dallas Buyers Club and other similar communities existed. In that time, there was no easy, legal way to provide access to the treatment for patients in need. This experience affected current regulations in the U.S., and now there is a number of ways that allow access to the investigational or non-approved therapies for serious or life-threatening conditions, including but not limited to HIV/AIDS. Additionally, there is a way to expedite process of approval for the treatment in so-called FDA fast track drug development program.
Access to Investigational Drugs Outside of a Clinical Trial (expanded access)
Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of an investigational drug outside of a clinical trial to treat a patient with a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition who has no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options.
FDA regulations allow access to investigational drugs for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for:
[checklist]
-
individual patients, including in emergencies
-
intermediate-size patient populations
-
larger populations under a treatment protocol or treatment investigational new drug application (IND)
[/checklist]
To permit treatment of a patient with an investigational drug under an expanded access program, FDA requests following conditions to be met:
[checklist]
-
The patient’s disease or condition has no satisfactory approved therapy. An example of this is a rare type of cancer that has no known or approved treatment. Or, it may be the case that the available treatments did not work for the patient.
-
The potential benefit for the patient justifies the potential risks. An example of this is the potential for longer survival with a disease or condition.
-
The expanded availability of the untested drug will not interfere with that product’s development. For example, access to an investigational drug should not interfere with enrollment in clinical trials needed to demonstrate the drug’s safety and effectiveness.
[/checklist]
Additionally, the drug manufacturer and the patient’s doctor must make special arrangements to obtain the drug for the patient. These arrangements must be authorized by the FDA. These safeguards are in place to avoid exposing patients to unnecessary risks.
Just as in clinical trials, these investigational drugs have not yet been approved by the FDA as safe and effective. They may be effective in the treatment of a condition, or they may not. They also may have unexpected serious side effects. It is important for you to consider the possible risks if you are interested in seeking access to an investigational drug.
[box type=”info” ]
How to Get Expanded Access to an Investigational Drug?
The process must begin with your healthcare provider, who should follow these steps:
[checklist]
-
Your healthcare provider must contact the company that manufactures the drug to make sure it is willing to provide the drug.
-
Your healthcare provider must submit an Investigational New Drug (IND) [link to section below] application to the appropriate FDA review division.
-
In an emergency situation, the request to use the drug may be made via telephone or other rapid means of communication, and authorization to ship and use the drug may be given by the FDA official over the telephone. With emergency INDs, shipment of and treatment with the drug may begin prior to FDA’s receipt of the written IND submission that is to follow the initial request.
-
In a non emergency situation, the IND must be received by FDA before shipment of and treatment with the drug may begin. These non emergency requests are known as individual patient INDs.
[/checklist]
The IND Application
The IND application is required to gain access to an investigational drug outside a clinical trial. The application should include the following information:
-
Statement that this is a request for an individual patient IND for treatment use (specifying whether it is an emergency IND or individual patient IND), which should be included at the top of the correspondence and on the mailing cover.
-
Brief clinical history of the patient including:
-
Diagnosis
-
Disease status
-
Prior therapy
-
Response to prior therapy
-
Rationale for requesting the proposed treatment, including a list of available therapeutic options that would ordinarily be tried before the investigational drug, or an explanation of why use of the investigational drug is preferable to the use of available therapeutic options
-
Reference for a published protocol or journal article, if appropriate
-
-
Proposed Treatment Plan including:
-
Dose (how much and how often)
-
Route of administration (by mouth, injection, etc.)
-
Planned duration (how long the product is to be taken)
-
Monitoring procedures
-
Modifications (e.g., dose reduction or treatment delay) for toxicity
-
-
Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Information and Pharmacology and Toxicology Information, including a description of the manufacturing facility. This can be done by providing a letter of authorization (LOA) that refers to this information if it has been previously submitted to FDA (for example, to an existing IND or new drug application). The treating physician should contact the sponsor of the previously submitted information for the authorization and letter. The LOA should include identifying information, such as the sponsor’s application (e.g., IND) number.
-
Informed Consent Statement noting that informed consent and approval by an appropriate institutional review board (IRB) will be obtained prior to beginning treatment. In the case of an emergency, treatment may begin without prior IRB approval, provided the IRB is notified of the emergency treatment within 5 working days of treatment.
-
Investigator Qualification Statement that specifies the training, experience, and licensure of the treating physician. The first two pages of a curriculum vitae typically contain this information and are usually sufficient.
-
FDA Form 1571 completed with the treating physician listed as the sponsor. Download Form 1571 and view the instructions.
[Source: FDA]
[/box]
Expedited approval
For the drugs that are the first available treatment or have advantages over existing treatments, the Food and Drug Administration has developed four distinct approaches to make such drugs available as rapidly as possible:
[checklist]
-
Priority Review
-
Accelerated Approval
-
Fast Track
-
Breakthrough Therapy
[/checklist]
Priority Review
Prior to approval, each drug marketed in the United States must go through a detailed FDA review process. Since 1992, under the Prescription Drug User Act (PDUFA) a Priority Review designation is used to the evaluation of applications for drugs that, if approved, would be significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions when compared to standard applications. A Priority Review designation means FDA’s goal is to take action on an application within 6 months (compared to 10 months under standard review). Priority Review does not affect the length of the clinical trial period.
Accelerated Approval
It takes many years to fully assess whether a drug provides a real effect on how a patient survives, feels, or functions, and brings a clinical benefit. To make drugs for serious conditions that filled an unmet medical need approved earlier, FDA can use Accelerated Approval process and base its decision on a surrogate endpoint. A surrogate endpoint is a marker of therapeutic effect, that is thought to predict clinical benefit but does not measure it. Drug still needs to be evaluated after approval in Phase IV studies, and basing on the results of this Phase IV FDA can change its initial decision on approval (ie. withdraw one of labeled indication, or completely withdraw drug from the market if confirmatory tests do not prove enough clinical benefit).
Fast Track
Fast track is a process designed to facilitate the development, and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need.
A drug that receives Fast Track designation is eligible for some or all of the following:
[checklist]
-
More frequent meetings with FDA to discuss the drug’s development plan and ensure collection of appropriate data needed to support drug approval
-
More frequent written correspondence from FDA about such things as the design of the proposed clinical trials and use of biomarkers
-
Eligibility for Accelerated Approval and Priority Review, if relevant criteria are met
-
Rolling Review, which means that a drug company can submit completed sections of its Biological License Application (BLA) or New Drug Application (NDA) for review by FDA, rather than waiting until every section of the application is completed before the entire application can be reviewed. BLA or NDA review usually does not begin until the drug company has submitted the entire application to the FDA
[/checklist]
Breakthrough Therapy
Breakthrough therapy is the latest program at FDA that will complement the programs listed above. It facilitates and expedites drug development and review for serious conditions and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over available therapy on a clinically significant endpoint(s).
A drug that receives Breakthrough Therapy designation is eligible for the following:
[checklist]
-
All Fast Track designation features
-
Intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program, beginning as early as Phase 1
-
Organizational commitment involving senior managers
[/checklist]
[Source: FDA]
British MHRA’s Early Access to Medicines
Early access to the innovative drugs is still a topic for regulators not only in the U.S. In the United Kingdom the latest development is an Early Access to Medicines program unveiled by the Government on 7th of March 2014. The program aims to accelerate access to innovative medicines for serious conditions, allowing doctors to prescribe the drugs after an initial scientific assessment by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
The program, funded by pharmaceutical companies, will be launched on April 2014. Suitable drugs will receive a “promising innovative medicine” (PIM) designation. PIM designation will be based on several years of clinical data assessed by MHRA, but before completion of Phase III trials. This will probably save several years in comparison to the standard process for approval, that will be run in parallel to the new program.
Early Access to Medicines is modeled after the FDA’s breakthrough therapy designation. British regulatory agency estimates that one or two therapies could be designated under the scheme each year.
It seems there is no need for Dallas Buyers Club anymore.
Quantified self, mHealth and wearable technology. While you could hear about those trends in the past, the tipping point has been reached at the CES 2014. What was supposed to be the future is our present much faster than industry expected. Enterprise market is again far behind consumers. Health care industry tethered by regulations just cannot catch-up quickly enough.
At K-message however, we can take a look at the forefront of the consumer technology and assess its possible impact on the industry, and our focal point – pharmaceutical marketing. But first, let us define what we are talking about.
What is quantified self? Who wears technology? What is mHealth?
Quantified self (QS)
Quantified self (QS) is a trend of personal data collection via technology. The idea is to acquire data on person’s state, actions and performance using wearable technology and/or mobile applications.

Wearable technology is a description of any electronics that one can wear. It may be something with a sensor for quantified self purposes, but it can be also a T-shirt with LEDs intended just to look nice. From quantified self perspective, wearable technology is a trend that enables the whole movement by devices that can capture personal data.
mHealth is a general term for usage of mobile devices (mobile phones, smartphones, tablet computers etc.) in connection to medicine or health care. mHealth includes providing information to the patients or HCPs, but also collecting patients data.
Is Quantified Self big and mature enough to have an impact on health care industry?
The topic is huge. On the Quantified Self Guide – a website that collects different Quantified Self applications, there are 505 different tools listed at the time of writing this article. Of those 65 are tagged with medicine and 124 with fitness category tag. Wearable technology was main topic of CES 2014. If you look around in the office of any healthcare corporation (or, even better, on the jogging path) in the developed world, you will notice wearable sensors in form of bracelets, chest bands or small items in the shoes used by increasingly high population. Users of the smartphones install “measuring” applications on their devices.
What are the numbers? Runtastic, a mobile app dedicated to track running performance has recorded 60 million downloads worldwide and 25 million registered users on Runtastic.com. Similarly targeted device and app Nike+ platform claims 18 million users. Fitbit.com, the website that allows to see the results of tracking with Fitbit range of devices according to Quantcast has around 2 million users from the U.S. only. Quantified Self is definitely mass market now and it will not fade away. Instead it seems it will get more devices and applications as the tech industry embraces it.
Quantified self: dangers versus benefits
From the pharma marketer perspective quantified self may be even more disruptive than the raise of social media (which, by the way is still not accommodated properly). As it gives more knowledge to the user it takes away control from the HCPs. Fitness trackers are obviously beneficial as they encourage the best prevention against disease – exercise and movement. On the other hand the trend brings some risks with it.
Interpretation of the data gathered by the device or application, even if supported with some mHealth resource filled with scientifically proven knowledge may lead to wrong decisions. Innocent life-logging app that counts calories intake may lead to starvation, or at least to non-balanced diet for some users who want to lose weight too quickly (not mentioning here eating disorders). A non-calibrated blood pressure and pulse tracker may put people with cardiovascular issues at risk (I cannot breath but the reader says I can still run…). The device alone can affect users health by allergy (that happened with Fitbit Force recently), heat, permanent exposure to radiation. There was also at least one occurrence when using activity tracking device, and competing for better score was connected with a tragic death of one too motivated biker.
In pharmaceutical industry there is a lot of pressure put on the patient data privacy. Quantified self puts those data in open, sharing the very personal information on the activity publicly, sometimes without informing user about it. This was a real case when Fitbit.com allowed public to see users who were logging their 30 minutes very active sexual encounters.
What is fascinating in Quantified Self movement is how the application can change focus from empowering by giving the knowledge to the patient to enslaving by enforcing control over users behavior. In one of the quantified self business use cases, not related to health care, a QS device called Hitachi Business Microscope worn by office workers was mapping their communication patterns within organization, pinpointing unnecessary meetings, organization social graph and communication issues.
If we take it to the field of pharma marketing, QS may be seen as a great tool to improve patient compliance or to provide personalized healthcare, but also as a menace of higher insurance rates for any misbehavior – be it sitting too long on the couch or having one drink too much.
Quantified self and EHR, EMR and PHR solutions
One of the promising features of the quantified self is possibility to include the data acquired by sensors directly into electronic health records systems (EHR). Electronic Health Record is not exactly what industry widely embraces as EMR – electronic medical record. Although the data gathered, stored and processed in EHR are more or less the same, the source is different. EMR can include only data provided by medical institutions and healthcare professionals.
EHR is open to any source of data. It includes what can be gathered from EMR, but also accepts patient input, quantified self devices and applications feeds and other sources. A specific range of EHR, that includes only data provided and managed by the user (in this case – patient) is Personal Health Record (PHR). The most renowned solutions of this kind are Google Health (decommissioned) and Microsoft Health Vault, but there are also other providers.

This brings new opportunities as we get really Big Data in EHR, but also some risks. Data in EHR and PHR cannot be really trusted, as they come from not validated sources and can be contradictory. The sampling (how often you take a data point) is not standardized and quality of the input is questionable. Nowadays, adoption of EHR and PHR is very limited, as is their functionality and usability. However with the growth of the quantified self we can expect rising importance of such hubs for the medical information.
Quantified self and regulatory compliance: HIPAA and HITECH
Quantified self movement adoption is nowadays limited to developed nations, and the biggest market for those solutions is in the United States of America. There are two regulatory bodies in the US that overlook quantified self devices and applications. For non-medical use the main authority is FTC. Privacy and access to the health related data is regulated by HIPAA and HITECH regulations.
HIPAA Compliance Checklist
- Have you formally designated a person or position as your organization’s privacy and security officer?
- Do you have documented privacy and information security policies and procedures?
- Have they been reviewed and updated, where appropriate, in the last six months?
- Have the privacy and information security policies and procedures been communicated to all personnel, and made available for them to review at any time?
- Do you provide regular training and ongoing awareness communications for information security and privacy for all your workers?
- Have you done a formal information security risk assessment in the last 12 months?
- Do you regularly make backups of business information, and have documented disaster recovery and business continuity plans?
- Do you require all types of sensitive information, including personal information and health information, to be encrypted when it is sent through public networks and when it is stored on mobile computers and mobile storage devices?
- Do you require information, in all forms, to be disposed of using secure methods?
- Do you have a documented breach response and notification plan, and a team to support the plan?
If you answered no to any of these questions you have gaps in your security fence.
If you answered no to more than three you don’t have a security fence.
Quantified self and regulatory compliance: FDA guidance on medical mobile applications
For medical mobile applications relevant authority is the FDA. The Agency considers mobile phone as a medical device as soon as it meets one of the following:
- It works expressly for medical purposes and offers medical or health-related apps
- It acts as an effective accessory or component to aid medical health
While assessing medical mobile applications the FDA applies the same risk-based approach as for other medical devices. The guidance document provides examples of how the FDA might regulate certain moderate-risk (Class II) and high-risk (Class III) mobile medical apps. The guidance also provides examples of mobile apps that are not medical devices, mobile apps that the FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion and mobile medical apps that the FDA will regulate in Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix C.
For many mobile apps that meet the regulatory definition of a “device” but pose minimal risk to patients and consumers, the FDA will exercise enforcement discretion and will not expect manufacturers to submit premarket review applications or to register and list their apps with the FDA. This includes mobile medical apps that:
- Help patients/users self-manage their disease or condition without providing specific treatment suggestions;
- Provide patients with simple tools to organize and track their health information;
- Provide easy access to information related to health conditions or treatments;
- Help patients document, show or communicate potential medical conditions to healthcare providers;
- Automate simple tasks for healthcare providers; or
- Enable patients or providers to interact with Personal Health Records (PHR) or Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems.
Note, that PHR and EHR systems are not covered by the guidance on medical mobile applications.
Here you can see the list of examples of mobile medical applications the FDA has cleared or approved.
This is the list of examples of mobile medical applications for which the FDA will exercise enforcement discretion. Those applications may meet the definition of medical devices but they pose a lower risk to the public in the Agency’s view.
Quantified self: issues to resolve
The quantified self will gain more importance in the healthcare industry. However, there are still some issues to be addressed before embedding them in the marketing strategy. Before building your own application or choosing one from the market consider them carefully.
Tracking versus privacy
Regardless of HITECH privacy considerations, the pharmaceutical company has to be extremely careful about patient data privacy. It has to be absolutely clear to the patient and the organization, that all data are owned by the user of the application and not the company. You need to have users’ direct consent if you are going to aggregate, store, process, or use the data in any way.
Data reliability
Your quantified self-application or device will gather data in connection to patients’ health. Therefore it is important to achieve possibly high level of accuracy and ensure the integrity of this data. It should be also clearly stated what are limitations of the sensors and technology used.
Fallback in case of failure
You need to make sure that in case of failure or loss of the device, patients will still be able to be treated or diagnosed with a fallback solution.
Interoperability
If your application allows data exchange with EMR, make sure it uses open standards, so that it can be used regardless of the health care provider chosen by the patient. This applies also to interoperability with PHR solutions.
Clear guidance for the interpretation of data
Make sure that the data gathered and provided to the patient are not subject to misinterpretation. There should be a clear explanation of the result provided, and if not possible the instruction should point the patient to the HCP who will be able to interpret the data. Even the best result on the application should not encourage patients to be not compliant with the treatment ordered by his doctor.
Co-operation with HCPs
If every patient comes to his GP with gigabytes of life-logging data, there is no time for a proper diagnosis. Valuable information will be hidden in the noise like a needle in a haystack. Not to mention different UIs of the applications and general annoyance with non-standard requests coming out of the blue. To avoid this you need to provide HCPs with clear instructions on what to look for and make sure they will know it at the first glance. Think about a separate dashboard for the physician or even better – distribute the app through the trained HCPs.
Example of quantified self in pharma marketing: Eli Lilly’s Talking Progress.

Talking Progress (this name applies for UK & Ireland markets) is an application available for iOS and Android, that was presented by Claire Perrin on the recent Social Media in the Pharmaceutical Industry conference in London.
Talking Progress is dedicated for adults suffering from depression. Using this app patient can record his/her mood to produce progress charts which can track the recovery and help inform discussions with the doctor. It is extremely important, as one of the symptoms of depression is lack of focus and gaps in the memory.
The app also contains useful hints and tips about lifestyle changes as well as information on causes of depression and treatments.
Talking Progress Features:
- Educational information about depression
- Mood Diary
- Note pages
- Healthy living advice
- Medicine reminder alarm
Together with an app Lilly provides a booklet for the patient and small information desk stand for the HCPs. Embedding quantified self elements (diary and note pages) with mHealth features (educational information, lifestyle advice and compliance reminder) makes this app a perfect companion for patients suffering depression. Providing HCPs with the information pack (they are supposed to “prescribe” an app) guarantees that the data gathered via the app will be used and understood by the doctor.
Quantified self in pharma marketing – an opportunity for everyone
It looks like the quantified self movement will stay with us for longer. Lilly’s example described above shows that properly used it may be beneficial for all – patients, HCPs and pharmaceutical industry. We can without doubt add payers to the list. Correctly applied quantified self is great way for prevention via changing lifestyle habits, increasing disease awareness and improving patient’s adherence to the prescribed treatment. Will we use this opportunity? Quantified self may save lives and money. It seems that even regulatory bodies are up to date with the trend, so the only thing missing is pharma marketers involvement. Do you plan to include quantified self and mHealth elements in your brand strategy?
On 22nd and 23rd of January in London I was honored to be a speaker at the Social Media in the Pharmaceutical Industry conference. Now back in Swiss Pharma capital city – Basel, let me summarize the key lessons on the social media in pharma industry I took back from the United Kingdom.
![Social Network Analysis book cover Social Network Analysis book cover [social media in pharmaceutical industry]](http://3.122.255.92/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/8355930139_eb8852d7dc_n.jpg)
Social Media in Pharmaceutical Industry Key Learning #1: Social Media is not a marketer’s toy, but a source of powerful intelligence data. A Big Data!
![English: A diagram of a . A diagram of a social network [social media in pharmaceutical industry]](http://3.122.255.92/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/350px-diagram_of_a_social_network.jpg)
As we discussed after the presentation, Social Media is not such a big revolution as some pundits say and it will not replace scientific method with statistical analysis of huge amounts of data. Still it is an extremely useful tool that should be looked at out of plain pharma marketing perspective. Which was further confirmed by Dr. Sherri Matis-Mitchell, an Associate Principal Information Scientist R&D Information at AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Matis showed us how Social Media, when properly used, can provide important answers to R&D teams in pharma industry and help identify unmet needs of patients.
Social Media in Pharmaceutical Industry Key Learning #2: Legal Team is not a threat (and can be a savior) for social media in pharma.
![Let's Make It Legal Let's Make It Legal [social media in pharmaceutical industry]](http://3.122.255.92/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/lets_make_it_legal.jpeg)
On the other hand, while social media in pharma is becoming more and more regulated, I had an impression that some of our colleagues are going dangerously close to the line. Ms. Müge Gizem Bıçakçı Akalın (@MGizemBA), a New Promotional Models Manager at Boehringer Ingelheim’s Turkish affiliate shared with us plans to promote a Facebook page of a feminine avatar with a name very closely resembling a brand of prescribed drug for menstrual pains. Is it already promotion and communication DTC, or still just a disease awareness campaign? Let’s hope Gizem has very good friends in her legal team and they are crystal clear about their legal framework.
Social Media in Pharmaceutical Industry Key Learning #3: Social media in pharma can be measured and data driven (but not always is).
Gary Monk (@Garymonk) from Havas Lynx and John Pugh (@JohnPugh) from BI shared similar thoughts on how to measure efficiency of pharma activities in social media. As we were sitting in the UK, for obvious reasons there were not much about direct impact on sales. However, we could see important metrics on the engagement. Both speakers provided some hints on what can be improved in Facebook and Twitter presence of the analysed brands, but it is not what is the most interesting from my point of view.
What is more important is just an attempt to step back and look at those activities and try to measure them against each other. Then track what works and what is not. How your facebook page welcomes user? How fast do you respond (do you)? How often do you tweet? Do you follow others and do you retweet or share their posts? What makes Eli Lilly or Boehringer more successful in Social Media than in the market? We can find those answers, and we should as we are no longer pioneers in the social media. It is time to treat it as a serious communication channel with real budget and real targets to meet.
The lessons on social media in pharma listed above are not a comprehensive list. I have learnt much more, and I am going to share those lessons soon on K-message in other posts. There were great examples of social media and digital in action. Mobile app helping patients to fight against depression (Claire Perrin), Catz against Asthma (Ben Furber @BenFurber), Knowledge database available online to HCPs thanks to Merck and their Univadis (Thibaud Guymard @thibaudguymard), I will not be able to mention them all now. But I can now say thank you to all participants, speakers, and SMi for making this event so inspiring. Thank you!





















