A new medicine can clear every regulatory hurdle and still stall at the bedside. So what separates the launches clinicians embrace from those that struggle to gain traction?
Words by Isabel O’Brien
1. What makes a doctor trust a new drug at launch?
The first thing Dr Jelena Stojanovic, Consultant, Paediatric Nephrology, Great Ormond Street Hospital, UK, asks of a new therapy is whether it fills a genuine gap: “is this medicine addressing a clinical problem for which we currently do not have any alternative treatments?” If alternatives already exist, she wants to know “what this one brings” – fewer side effects, say, or a longer life. Only then do other factors get taken into account, and she is precise about what she checks: how the trial was conducted, and the number of patients included.
Two recent surveys back up her rationale. In Oncology News Central’s 2026 Drug Report, efficacy led as the most important factor for prescription of a new therapy, closely followed by availability of data, safety and clinical judgement. Likewise, a 2025 survey of 509 US physicians found 76% said FDA approval swayed them “a lot”, yet they still wanted proof of rigour. The takeaway: earn attention with a real gap, then earn trust with credible, published data.
2. Should you lead with impact or product information?
The most persuasive launch content leads with clinical impact, not a sales message. This is a point emphasised by NHS doctor Dr Azmain Chowdhury when he spoke to EMJ GOLD about education versus promotion in healthcare. He suggests starting with disease awareness, such as how common the condition is, its risk factors and its clinical impact, before introducing product-specific information.
In other words, answer “Why does this matter?” before saying “Here’s our drug.” The alternative risks losing the room: much pharma content, Chowdhury adds, is too corporate in nature – built, in his words, to “tick a marketing box rather than to actually engage people”. The takeaway: content that reads as a marketing exercise risks having no impact, while content that helps doctors make balanced decisions will land well.
3. Does faster approval help or hurt clinical confidence?
Increasingly, launch speed is a top priority, with many healthcare systems expanding fast-track routes to meet demand. But when it comes to these approvals, the pace cuts both ways. The Oncology News Central 2026 report shows a clear swing towards scrutiny: in 2025, frequent prescribing of new drugs fell to 35%, down from 44% a year earlier, with many clinicians now prescribing only a handful of new drugs a year. The reason? Wariness that approvals increasingly lean on surrogate endpoints.
Dr Stojanovic’s position is pragmatic, not absolute: you must always “weigh risk against benefit”, and an expedited approval has to be judged “case by case”, she says. If, on balance, she backs a drug, she will advocate for its use – but then “it comes down to us to then discuss the risk” with patients and their families. The takeaway: “approved fast” can read as “less mature data” – so make clear a drug is novel and needed.
4. What would the ideal launch platform look like?
Even the best evidence only helps if clinicians can find it. The change Dr Stojanovic most wants to see is “a unified platform where one can go” and search by condition – bringing together current and emerging therapies, the companies behind them and the relevant evidence.
That, she says, would be helpful for comparing new options against what is already available. Credible evidence often exists, but fragmented sources and promotional packaging make it harder to find and assess. The takeaway: the launch experience clinicians want is condition-first, source-linked and easy to compare. The easier pharma makes that journey, the more time clinicians can spend on the evidence and what it means for their patients.
Featured image: Tuan Nguyen on Adobe Stock
