Advance, Partner, or Acquire
A mid-sized pharma company was weighing a rare-disease in-licensing opportunity in the US, but competing priorities limited internal capacity to develop an informed commercial recommendation.
The asset was in early phase II with limited data and evolving development plans. Key uncertainties included patient identification, treatment pathways, and payer expectations for a rare disease in a highly managed, complex setting. The output needed to support the governance process by clearly framing commercial potential, risks, and open questions. The engagement involved serving as the commercial lead for the due diligence assessment, synthesizing evidence and representing the commercial perspective in discussions with the prospective partner company.
The work was structured around the client’s core business questions, organized into six domains: diagnosis and treatment, patient and treater populations, settings of care, product profile, access, and analogues. A transparent evidence‑mapping system linked each data‑room finding to its commercial implications and to specific client‑identified questions, capturing evidence, interpretation, and knowledge gaps to ensure conclusions were traceable and grounded in source material. Primary research focused on the most critical uncertainties and was aligned to the same framework, allowing insights to integrate directly into the assessment rather than sit as standalone inputs.
The client team received an integrated, evidence‑backed view of the US commercial opportunity. Rather than relying on high-level impressions, they could see how conclusions, peak-year scenarios, and recommendations were built from specific data, assumptions, and remaining uncertainties. This made it easier to distinguish what was well supported from what required judgment.
The final deliverable provided a governance‑ready synthesis, including a US commercial perspective, a three‑scenario peak‑year range, and clear documentation of answers and gaps across key questions. This enabled more structured internal discussions about whether the opportunity was compelling and under what conditions.
This is the kind of NPP work that reflects my approach: make assumptions explicit and bring structure to uncertainty so commercial recommendations are stronger without overreaching the evidence.