When a biotech product gains FDA approval, celebration often follows. Yet approval isn’t the finish line—it’s where the real journey begins. The United States offers opportunity, but only for teams that prepare for scrutiny, resistance, and complexity. In our experience, success starts with aligning scientific insight with stakeholder needs—payers, prescribers, patients—and integrating those insights into launch planning long before approval.
Here, we draw on twelve U.S. biotech launches—products that each faced unique hurdles in regulation, market access, or adoption. Some defied expectations. Others stumbled. Together, their stories highlight practical lessons for product teams navigating today’s evolving launch environment.
1. Humira (Adalimumab): Mastering Momentum Over Time
As one of the first fully human monoclonal antibodies, Humira rewrote the rules—and stayed dominant for years.
Rather than resting after its initial approval in rheumatoid arthritis, AbbVie targeted additional conditions—psoriasis, Crohn’s, ulcerative colitis—and backed those claims with fresh data and provider outreach. They invested heavily in patient support, KOL engagement, and proactive payer discussions. When biosimilars emerged, the company leaned on patent protections and contract negotiations to stay ahead.
Takeaway: Approval is just the start. Ongoing clinical updates, provider engagement, and lifecycle strategy are what keep momentum—and relevance—going.
2. Aduhelm (Aducanumab): The Gap Between Approval and Acceptance
Biogen’s Alzheimer’s drug sparked headlines—then hesitation.
FDA’s accelerated pathway granted approval, but the broader clinical community pushed back, citing weak evidence. Payers balked at its price and demanded more results. Coverage restrictions followed. Physicians hesitated to prescribe. Biogen faced a public relations challenge and ultimately revised its messaging.
Takeaway: Approval must be paired with clear, credible data—and a launch team attuned to payer, provider, and public sentiment.
3. Repatha (Evolocumab): High Efficacy Meets High Barriers
This cholesterol therapy showed clear clinical benefit—but hit a wall at access.
Following the FOURIER study, Amgen saw strong data on reducing cardiovascular events. Yet the product struggled with prior authorization and payer gatekeeping. List price drew pushback. Only after pricing adjustments and outcomes-based rebate agreements did access—and uptake—begin to rise.
Takeaway: Effective payer strategies—including pricing, access tools, and negotiation plans—should be locked in well before launch.
4. Spinraza (Nusinersen): Rare Disease Demand Meets Coordination
The first approved treatment for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) faced massive unmet need—and complex logistics.
Biogen worked closely with global advocacy groups, insurers, and specialty pharmacies to structure support systems for patients. Since the treatment required an ongoing intrathecal regimen, adherence and delivery logistics were especially critical. By building payers’ comfort and offering financial assistance, Spinraza found its early footing.
Takeaway: In rare diseases, patient access infrastructure—and payer preparedness—can make or break a launch.
5. Zolgensma (Onasemnogene abeparvovec): Navigating Revolutionary Science—and Scrutiny
A gene therapy that offered hope also raised tough questions.
Zolgensma’s one-time gene therapy for infants with SMA arrived with unprecedented clinical value and a record-high price tag. Payers and families welcomed hope, but regulators and media scrutinized cost, long-term safety, and trial conduct. Launch teams had to balance transparency, urgency, and ethical communication—while forging payer agreements that anticipated lifetime costs.
Takeaway: With breakthrough innovations—and breakthrough prices—transparency and ethical framing aren’t optional. They’re essential.
6. Tecartus: CAR‑T Rolls Out Amid High Stakes
CAR‑T therapy offered a bold new approach—but logistics were everything.
Tecartus’s launch demanded more than physician training: it required building certified centers of excellence, coordinating leukapheresis, manufacturing lead times, and patient-specific orchestration from start to finish. With high margin potential—but also high complexity—market access teams needed to educate payers and providers on built-in infrastructure, outcome tracking, and risk-sharing models.
Takeaway: Innovations that require delivery infrastructure must start with logistics-driven communication—not just clinical narratives.
7. Kalydeco: Precision Meets Pragmatic Payer Needs
Cystic fibrosis treatment honed toward a genetic subset—success followed.
Kalydeco focused on patients with a specific genetic mutation. While that meant a smaller audience, it also meant a strong clinical rationale for payer coverage. Vertex secured favorable placement by framing the treatment as targeted and essential to the right population. The product emphasized outcomes and long-term adherence support—making payer investment more accepted.
Takeaway: Even smaller-market therapies can gain payer favor when messages align tightly with biology, outcome value, and patient support.
8. Mesoblast’s Ryoncil: Emergency Use, Real‑Time Scrutiny
Used to treat pediatric inflammatory conditions in crisis settings, Ryoncil launched under intense public and regulatory observation.
When calls for emergency access escalated, Mesoblast pursued FDA Emergency Use authorization. That move helped thousands—but also placed scientific standards, transparency, and risk management under a microscope. The company needed to balance compassionate access with the obligation to collect data and offer full post-approval oversight.
Takeaway: Emergency-use launches test a company’s ability to act quickly—and responsibly. They reveal whether systems can flex without crumbling.
9. Biktarvy: Combining Convenience with Value in HIV Care
A once-daily combo pill simplified HIV therapy—but payers asked for adherence justification.
The biologic once-daily regimen aligned well with both patients’ lives and provider best practice. But price was only the start of payer conversations. Teams emphasized reduced pill burden, adherence modeling, and long-term safety—all elements that helped place Biktarvy favorably on formularies.
Takeaway: Even when science is strong, attention to adherence, cost, and payer models drives coverage decisions.
10. COVID‑19 Therapeutic (Failed Launch): When Approval Isn’t Enough
An early emergency approval stirred hope for treating COVID‑19—but evidence fell short.
Rapid authorization raised expectations. But confirmatory trials did not support early findings. Physicians lost confidence, payers reversed coverage decisions, and public perception shifted. The rapid unrolling and quick retreat highlighted the risks of launching without strong, durable data.
Takeaway: Emergency pathways must be coupled with solid execution, evidence, transparency, and fallback planning.
11. Biosimilar Launch: Overtaking the Incumbent
Entering an established biologic market demands more than a cheaper option.
Although biosimilars promise savings, providers and payers don’t switch lightly. Successful launches rely on trust-building, payer negotiations for tier placement, and robust educational outreach detailing comparability and monitoring strategies.
Takeaway: Pricing alone won’t dislodge incumbents. Effective launches build credibility and relationship-based access.
12. Phage Therapy Pilot: Navigating the Uncharted
Phage therapy arrives with potential—but little commercial precedent.
As an experimental modality, phage therapy operates in a regulatory gray zone. Launch teams must define endpoints, data pathways, and reimbursement models from scratch. Their journey underscores the need for regulatory engagement and infrastructure investment even before approval.
Takeaway: In pioneering science, the path to patient access is unpaved—and requires teams that build frameworks as they go.
Common Themes That Drive Launch Success
Although each product followed its own path, four principles consistently emerged:
- Start Stakeholder Engagement Well Before Approval
Launch teams that coordinated with payers, providers, and patients months before FDA decisions were far more agile when approval came. - Build Support Beyond Clinical Data
Clinical readouts need backing: cost-effectiveness, real-world outcomes, patient experience—all frame the story that payers and providers need to hear. - Design for the Delivery Experience
From specialty medicine to gene therapy, successful launches anticipate the operational realities of administration and support. - Own Your Narrative
Approval isn’t a launch plan. Communication must align with scientific clarity, payer rationale, and ethical public positioning.
Practical Flow for Launch Teams
To translate these lessons into action, consider this journey:
- Before approval, clarify target populations, KOL ecosystems, evidence gaps, and payer motivations.
- Two quarters before launch, finalize access pathways, contracting positions, and provider training curricula.
- Launch month, execute coordinated rollouts: clinical, payer, and patient engagement must operate in parallel.
- Post‑launch, collect and share real-world outcomes, strengthen access where gaps appear, and prepare for next indications or label updates.
Final Thought: Launch Is Just the Beginning
These twelve stories reveal that innovation and approval are necessary—but not sufficient. Sustainable impact requires teams that anticipate questions before they emerge, prepare for scrutiny, and adapt quickly. As biotech science advances, commercial execution must evolve in lockstep.
Let me know if this tone and structure work well. I’m ready to build out the remaining sections fully, ensuring each case study includes sourced insights, stakeholder commentary, and strategic depth.
Leave a Reply