Skip to main content
Name the therapeutic class, the drug program, or the clinical question and ask Anara to map the evidence landscape: where each therapy stands in the published data, where the clinical differentiation is real, and where the patent or LOE timeline creates risk. For medical affairs, business development, and HEOR teams building a competitive evidence position.

​
1. Describe the task

The BD team needs a competitive read by Friday. The MSL team needs to know which head-to-head data exists and which evidence gaps the competitor is using. The payer is asking how this drug differs from the three already on formulary. All three questions require the same work. Anara searches across your uploaded trial papers, the academic index, published guidelines, and clinical trial registries to map where each therapy sits in the evidence base. It returns a structured comparison with per-source citations and a synthesis covering the key differentiators, the evidence gaps, and the LOE or patent signals you need for a complete competitive picture. Here a medical affairs scientist at a pharmaceutical company is building an evidence-based competitive position for an anti-PD-1 antibody program across six tumor types, one indication at a time, with each session covering a different tumor type. 
I am building a competitive evidence position for our anti-PD-1 antibody program in second-line non-small cell lung cancer. The relevant comparators are pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab.

For each comparator, please find and synthesize the following from published trial data and current clinical guidelines:
- Key pivotal trials: study name, primary endpoint, reported OS and PFS data, patient population
- Current guideline recommendations: NCCN and ESMO, line of therapy, biomarker requirements
- Evidence gaps: indications where the competitor has limited or no head-to-head data
- LOE and patent protection signals: any publicly reported timeline information

Use papers in my library first, then search PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov for anything not already uploaded. Cite every data point.

​
2. Give Anara context

Required context
  • The therapeutic class or drug program you are analyzing.
  • The comparators you want included.
  • Your library of published trial papers, if you have them uploaded. Anara searches the library first and supplements with academic databases and clinical trial registries.
Optional context
  • The specific clinical question driving the analysis: payer positioning, MSL field preparation, BD diligence, regulatory submission support. The output is tailored to the purpose.
  • The indication or tumor type if the analysis is indication-specific. Multi-indication programs are best analyzed one indication at a time for sufficient depth.

​
3. What Anara creates

A structured competitive evidence brief covering each named comparator with per-source citations for every data point. The synthesis identifies where clinical differentiation is real and traceable to data, where it is claimed but not established, and where evidence gaps create risk or opportunity. The brief is a starting-point evidence position for the MSL team, the payer meeting, or the BD conversation.

​
4. Follow-up prompts

​
Go deeper on one comparator’s evidence gaps

When the landscape overview surfaces a gap that needs sharper definition. 
You identified that nivolumab has limited published data in the PD-L1-negative subgroup in second-line NSCLC. Search PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov for any ongoing or completed trials in this subgroup. What is the current trial landscape? When might data emerge?

​
Build the payer positioning argument

When the competitive evidence brief needs to be translated into a value dossier section. 
Based on the evidence comparison, draft a 300-word payer positioning argument for our program versus pembrolizumab in PD-L1-high second-line NSCLC. Lead with the clinical differentiation supported by data, acknowledge where the evidence is comparable, and frame the remaining uncertainty honestly.

​
Update the brief for a new data readout

When new trial data has been published and you need to refresh the position. 
A new Phase 3 readout for pembrolizumab in second-line NSCLC was published last week. The DOI is [doi]. Update the relevant section of the competitive brief with the new data and tell me what changed in the competitive position.

​
5. Tricks, tips, and troubleshooting

​
How you word your prompt shapes what you get

Name the clinical question driving the analysis before listing comparators. “Payer positioning in first-line NSCLC” produces a different output from “MSL field preparation for a tumor board.” The dimensions you list are what gets synthesized: if you leave them open, Anara covers a general range that may not match your need. For multi-indication programs, run one indication per session.

​
Check the output against your own understanding

Anara searches the published record and the open academic index. It does not have access to unpublished trial data, conference presentations not yet in print, or internal competitor intelligence. The LOE and patent information comes from publicly reported timelines, which may differ from actual expiry dates by jurisdiction. Verify any claim you plan to state externally against the primary source.

​
What to do with the output next

Circulate the brief as an internal working document. Medical affairs, legal, and regulatory review will determine what can be stated externally. Use the brief to identify which claims need primary source verification before the position is finalized. For ongoing monitoring, run a targeted update prompt against the same library folder when new data publishes rather than rebuilding the landscape from scratch.