Enter the password to view this document.
A follow-on to the H2 2025 qualitative payer research. Eight markets, five stakeholder groups, one integrated price-volume model per market. Designed to inform launch sequencing, pricing corridor, positioning, and evidence investment decisions for DZP.
The H2 2025 P&MA and PVP qualitative research surfaced the key value drivers to leverage for P&MA success and gave you the structural picture: which evidence payers value and how access plays out in each market.
This phase builds on that foundation. It produces a defensible pricing opportunity per market with credible intervals, quantifies the impact of WoCBA on access and pricing, and ranks the eight markets by pricing potential and reimbursement likelihood for launch sequence planning. The design is calibrated to the H2 2025 findings so the two phases work as one programme.
We have designed a methodology specific to your business challenge: a shared survey design with five instrument types matched to the five stakeholder groups, integrated into one price-volume model per market. Pricing is anchored to the forecast 2029 to 2030 SLE pricing opportunity, not to today's prices. UCB and Biogen's own assumptions and target product value profiles (TPVP) inform and guide the DCE levels and the simulator inputs; the work is designed to refine and de-risk those forecasts rather than rely on them as fixed inputs. Pipeline competitor pricing carries inherent uncertainty, handled in the simulator's competitor-price flex post-delivery.
DZP is expected to be approximately the 10th FDA-approved treatment to market in SLE, after currently approved biologics and several products launching ahead. Most pipeline trials carry placebo-controlled designs, meaning current treatments are the key benchmarks rather than future head-to-head comparators. The chart below shows trial start dates and primary completion dates from clinicaltrials.gov, with estimated FDA and EMA approval windows extending from each primary completion.
Solid bar = actual trial period (study start to primary completion). Vertical tick = primary completion date (PCD). Flag markers = estimated approval (US flag for FDA = PCD + 15 months; EU flag for EMA = PCD + 24 months).
Pricing is anchored to the forecast 2029 to 2030 SLE pricing opportunity, not to today's prices. UCB and Biogen's own assumptions and target product value profiles (TPVP) inform and guide the DCE attribute levels and the simulator inputs; the work is designed to refine and de-risk those forecasts rather than rely on them as fixed inputs. Pipeline competitor pricing carries inherent uncertainty, handled in the simulator via a competitor-price flex toggle.
Sources: clinicaltrials.gov NCT records (Obinutuzumab NCT04963296, study start 26 Oct 2021, PCD 15 Sep 2025; Deucravacitinib NCT05617677, study start Dec 2022, PCD Jun 2025; Litifilimab NCT04895241, start 25 May 2021, PCD 30 Sep 2026; Upadacitinib NCT05843643, start 25 Jul 2023, PCD Mar 2027; Cenerimod NCT05672576, start Jun 2023, PCD May 2027; Ianalumab NCT05624749, start 21 Apr 2023, PCD 12 Apr 2027; Nipocalimab NCT07438496, start 5 Mar 2026, PCD 6 Dec 2028; DZP NCT06617325, start 21 Nov 2024, PCD 31 May 2028) supplemented with Access Infinity internal assumptions and expertise. Approval estimates: FDA = primary completion date + 15 months; EMA = primary completion date + 24 months. PHOENYCS-GO has read out; PHOENYCS-FLY primary completion is 31 May 2028.
The HCP survey produces a 7-attribute willingness-to-prescribe (WTRx) hierarchy per market. The payer surveys quantify the price-by-restriction trade-off at each plausible attribute combination. Together they isolate the evidence levels (e.g. BICLA, fatigue, steroid-sparing onset, WoCBA placental transfer, LupusQOL) that move payers from non-preferred to preferred placement, and the restriction depths payers will accept for a given premium.
WoCBA is tested two ways. (1) Embedded as a DCE attribute level with three evidence states (none, pharmacokinetic placental-transfer study, full prospective WoCBA evidence). This gives the marginal lift in HCP willingness-to-prescribe and payer access at each evidence threshold. (2) Dedicated scenario module in the simulator that flexes the size of the WoCBA-eligible subgroup and how it interacts with country-specific access routes. Together they answer: how much does WoCBA shift access overall, and how much does it shift access in the patients it actually applies to. The hypothesis carried forward from qualitative findings is that WoCBA is a share lever for the eligible subgroup rather than a population-wide price lever.
The integrated price-volume curve per market produces a rank-ordered view of pricing potential. Overlaid with payer access-state probability and HCP demand realisation, this yields a defensible launch sequence. Crucially, the sequence must also hedge risk against basket countries for the US IRP and address MFN exposure: launching first in a high-reference-priced market locks in a benchmark price that downstream IRP-basket markets will reference, so MFN / IRP is a core sequencing input, not a side scenario. We model this directly into the sequencing logic.
Six dimensions of why our heritage with the UCB / Biogen alliance makes us well placed to deliver this study quickly and efficiently. Click through to see the detail on each.
Markets: EU4, UK, LATAM. Conducted primary research to understand evidence expectations on comparator, outcome measures, value drivers and price potential. Reviewed clinical landscape to understand unmet need within subgroups. Obtained recommendations on evidence generation strategy satisfying EU payer requirements.
Markets: DE, CN. Analysed current and future SLE treatment landscape, including patient journey and clinical guidelines. Assessed unmet need particularly in sub-populations. Evaluated payer expectations focused on evidence, pricing and access strategies, including appropriate comparator therapy (ACT) considerations and key benefit-rating drivers.
Differentiated into 747 sub-specialties. Strong coverage in North America (250k+ physicians) and across all 8 markets in scope.
In-house patient recruitment experience for large-sample studies across geographies while maintaining respondent quality.
Access Infinity incorporates a range of established and proprietary techniques across the pricing lifecycle, with strong global pricing expertise. We bring comprehensive understanding of the US healthcare system (including a US-based partner) alongside extensive EU experience with the evolving landscape, including JCA readiness.
Methodologies: analogue analysis. Typical questions: which viable assets have the greatest commercial potential, what is the price potential under different TPVP scenarios, how should we position to achieve optimal revenue.
Methodologies: qualitative stakeholder research (1-1 IDIs, focus groups, advisory boards). Typical questions: impact of follow-on competitors, strategies to extend patent and maintain pricing, subsequent indication impact on existing pricing.
Methodologies: quantitative research (conjoint / DCE, Gabor-Granger, MaxDiff). Typical questions: how share changes with new entrants, HCP prescribing influence on price optimisation, payer-imposed restriction impact on revenue.
Strong expertise across the policy environments that matter most for SLE launch in the 8 markets in scope: IRA (US Inflation Reduction Act and Medicare negotiation), MFN (US Most-Favoured-Nation reference pricing), JCA (EU Joint Clinical Assessment, preparing for impact from 2025 onwards), and the BStabG reform in Germany (the Drug Stabilisation Law coming into effect from 2027, which abolishes the AMNOG guardrails for products with no or weak added benefit ratings).
An internal tool we run alongside delivery so UCB and Biogen can model exposure to MFN reference pricing under a range of CMS guidance scenarios. Not asked of payers in the survey.
Our Consulting and Digital teams have worked with UCB across numerous therapy areas at both global and regional levels, on launch brands and pipeline products. We currently have an active MSA in place. The H2 2025 DZP SLE qualitative payer research was delivered by our team and the leadership for this quantitative phase carries through directly. That continuity is the single biggest reason we are well placed to deliver this study quickly and efficiently for the UCB / Biogen alliance.
Therapy area experience with UCB: atopic dermatitis, axSpA / nr-axSpA / AS-r-axSpA, COPD, hidradenitis suppurativa, NCFB, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, SLE; rare disease and neurology including ITP, MG, CDD, CIDP, MOGAD, APS, epilepsy, COVID ARDS, DS, LGS, POI, osteoporosis, SSc-PAH, IMM, TED.
BD and due diligence · Market access landscaping · Evidence reviews · Analogue analysis and HTA reviews · Value proposition development · GVD and objection handlers · Strategic pricing and revenue optimisation · P&MA assessments · MEA / VBP planning · Lifecycle management planning · Value and evidence generation planning
Access Infinity is committed to operating sustainably and aligned to UCB's sustainability priorities. We hold validated SBTi (Science-Based Targets initiative) emissions-reduction targets, a current EcoVadis sustainability rating, and a strong rating on the Indigo supplier ESG assessment. Our carbon-maturity programme covers operations and procurement, and we report on our progress at each annual review with UCB procurement.
The H2 2025 qualitative payer research for UCB and Biogen on DZP in SLE was led by Access Infinity. The methodology in this proposal is calibrated against the priors developed during that qualitative phase. Those qualitative outputs (WoCBA hypothesis, Saphnelo SC dynamics, biologic-experienced as a key gating attribute) feed directly into the hierarchical Bayes estimation as informative priors. The quantitative phase builds on the qualitative phase rather than starting cold.
This section walks through how the study runs end to end and what each output looks like. We start with the phase plan, then introduce the five stakeholder groups we are recruiting and explain why we segment them this way, then size the eligible patient populations, then show what the survey looks like at each stakeholder type, then describe how the data come together into one integrated price-volume curve per market, and close with the four deliverables that come out of the engagement and how each ties back to your RFP.
All references to DZP and the PHOENYCS trials will be blinded throughout the survey instruments and respondent-facing stimuli. The survey describes "a new biologic for patients with active moderate-to-severe SLE who require add-on therapy to standard treatment" with attribute profiles; respondents are not told the asset is DZP. This protects the integrity of the trade-off measurements and avoids respondent bias linked to UCB, Biogen, or the PHOENYCS programme.
Eight phases, June to December 2026. Each phase ends with a named deliverable that UCB / Biogen sign off before the next phase opens. Two review cycles (draft and final), with only the US conducting country-level reviews of stimuli.
What we do, and why. Cross-functional kickoff with the UCB / Biogen core team, then a longer working session with the core team to lock the survey attributes and the scenarios we will model.
How we do it
What we do, and why. Access Infinity team designs the survey instruments based on agreed attributes and scenarios. Country-specific items layered in where they matter.
How we do it
What we do, and why. The survey is built online, translated into local languages, and link-checked before any respondent sees it.
How we do it
What we do, and why. Every piece of respondent-facing material is reviewed and approved by UCB / Biogen compliance before it touches an external respondent. Nothing goes into pilot or fielding without sign-off.
How we do it
What we do, and why. A small number of live interviews check that respondents understand the questions, the survey runs cleanly, and the design produces useable data.
How we do it
What we do, and why. We collect the data across all 8 markets in parallel, with a mid-fielding check halfway through.
How we do it
What we do, and why. Two parallel tracks: the analysis track cleans data and runs the statistical models that turn respondent answers into willingness-to-prescribe estimates and access curves per market. The simulator build track populates the interactive tool with the fitted utilities, so UCB / Biogen can flex pricing, evidence, and competitive scenarios live.
How we do it (Analysis)
How we do it (Simulator build, in parallel)
What we do, and why. One PowerPoint deliverable covering all markets, plus the simulator with training. Two core-team review cycles (draft and final) before the final hand-off.
How we do it
For week-by-week sequencing and the full Gantt with monthly tickers, see the Timeline section ↓ at the end of this proposal.
We are recruiting five stakeholder groups. Each one makes a different access decision, so each one answers a different question in a different way. The mix is driven by where the access decision is actually taken in each market, not by a one-size template.
Note on China: at the national level the Ex-US national group covers both public (NRDL / CHIIDL) and private payers; in the public sector there is no provincial payer access for DZP-class therapies (decisions are made centrally), so the subnational layer is hospital and commercial-channel. Tier-driven totals: Standard c. 815 respondents, Plus (recommended) c. 985, Premium c. 1,165. See the Investment section for tier definitions.
Tier choice (Standard / Plus / Premium) drives the N per cell; the instrument set and market coverage are identical across tiers.
| Stakeholder group | Markets | Standard | Plus (recommended) | Premium |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rheumatologists US | US | 80 | 100 | 120 |
| Rheumatologists ex-US, per market | 7 markets | 50 | 60 | 70 |
| US MCO Part B coverage owners | US | 18 | 22 | 28 |
| US IDN institutional contracting leads | US | 12 | 15 | 20 |
| Ex-US national decision-makers per market | 7 markets | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Ex-US subnational payers per market | 4 markets | 8 | 12 | 15 |
| Total respondents across all 8 markets | ~815 | ~985 | ~1,165 | |
Mint highlight = Plus tier (recommended default). Ex-US national n=5 across all tiers (small-sample IDIs; depth-of-instrument is the lever, not N). Quotas per stakeholder group: rheumatologists by community vs academic mix, regional spread and biologic-experience; US MCOs by plan archetype (commercial / MA / Medicaid) and lives-weighted with a 15% single-respondent cap; US IDNs by SLE infusion volume; subnational respondents by region or hospital tier as appropriate. The interactive cost model in the Investment section flexes per-market scope and tier together.
The moderated interviews in every market except the US are not the same as the H2 2025 qualitative phase. They embed three structured quantitative techniques (scenario-based pricing, adaptive paired-profile, analogue-anchored calibration); each one produces numbers we pool with the rest of the data. The moderated format exists because a standalone online survey is not estimable at a sample of 5; the quant content is still there.
Different markets have different relevant competitors and many lack published data at the time we are designing the survey. We use hypothetical comparator profiles, built from archetypes, that work market-agnostically and cover the plausible minimum and maximum evidence outcomes for each attribute. The simulator then lets UCB and Biogen flex named-product scenarios post-delivery as new data emerge.
Five pilot interviews to confirm comprehension, timing and drop-off before the live survey opens. We test the English-speaking markets (US, UK) first so translations into the six ex-US languages can begin in parallel.
| Pilot | Respondent | Market | What we check |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MCO coverage policy owner | US | Comprehension of price-access scenarios, restriction-depth follow-up |
| 2 | Community rheumatologist | US | Choice-task clarity, attribute level interpretation |
| 3 | IDN P&T lead | US | Institutional contracting attribute clarity, bridge wording |
| 4 | Rheumatologist | UK | Clinical attribute interpretation in ex-US context |
| 5 | Subnational payer (ICB lead) | UK | Country-specific managed access scheme item |
The price-volume model needs sized populations for every subgroup we are testing in the survey. That includes moderate-to-severe SLE patients requiring add-on therapy in each of the eight markets, plus splits for severe-only SLE, biologic-experienced vs biologic-naive, and WoCBA. It also needs to be flexible: as the design lands at the kick-off workshop, we may test further subgroups (e.g. by previous biologic class, age band, contraception use); the sizing model is built to extend to whatever subgroup the final survey design touches. We anchor on the UCB / Biogen 2025 SLE Epidemiology Package wherever possible and only generate new data where the package leaves gaps.
Source legend: pink = UCB / Biogen epi package primary anchor; green = HCP-validated. Each cell in the final model carries a source tag and a confidence level (high / medium / low).
| Market | Adult SLE prevalence (per 100,000) | Primary source in the package | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| US | 74.2 (Cerner EHR, age-adjusted); claims-based up to 167.1 (MarketScan) | UCB / Biogen epi package, US section | High |
| Germany | 55.8 | Schwarting et al. 2021 | High |
| France | 47.0 (crude); 40.8 (WHO age-standardised) | Arnaud et al. 2014 (data from 2010) | Med |
| Italy | 60.57 | Ferrara et al. 2024 | High |
| UK | 107.1 (2020); 97.04 in 2012 | Ellis et al. 2024 (CPRD 1990 to 2020) | High |
| Spain | 17.5 (Lugo region, age ≥15) to 210 (cross-sectional, small sample n=12) | Alonso et al. 2011 / Cortés Verdú et al. 2020 | Low |
| Japan | 60.0 (overall, range 47.0 Tottori to 101.7 Tokyo) | Yokogawa et al. 2025 (nationwide claims, 74,277 cases 2019 to 2020) | High |
| China | 47.6 (2017 nationwide); 36.0 (2009 to 2010 Anhui rural) | Li et al. 2024 (nationwide cohort, ~300m residents) / Zou et al. 2014 | High |
Confidence rule: 2020+ studies and large nationally representative samples = High; older studies (2015 to 2019) or single-region estimates = Medium; pre-2015 small samples = Low. UN and Eurostat adult denominators applied to convert rates to patient counts. Triangulated against Appendix Table 1 of the package (SLE Incidence and Prevalence Estimates 2000 to 2025). Spain is the weakest cell: we will request a UCB / Biogen-led refresh at kick-off and flag for HCP validation.
The UCB / Biogen epi package gives a robust prevalence denominator but does not size treated sub-populations or country-specific severity splits. UCB / Biogen-sourced data is high confidence but limited to what is already done. HCP-sourced data is fast and flexible but carries higher uncertainty (small sample per market, recall-based estimates). The hybrid approach grounds the model in the package wherever possible and uses HCP data only to fill specific gaps.
1. Can UCB / Biogen run additional MarketScan analyses to provide actual biologic-experienced percentages, severity stratification, and WoCBA cross-cuts?
2. How should we define WoCBA for the price-volume model (all 15-49, those not on contraception, those planning pregnancy, those currently pregnant, or cascading sub-segments)?
3. Are there country-specific claims or registry analyses UCB / Biogen has done for ex-US markets that supplement the epi package?
4. Do you have internal estimates of % requiring add-on therapy by market?
5. Are there any planned epi analyses we should align with?
Excel workbook with one tab per market plus a cross-market summary tab. Every cell shows value, source (with specific reference to the UCB / Biogen epi package where applicable), and confidence level. The model feeds directly into the price-volume convolution shown in the Analysis section.
These are illustrative mockups, not the final survey, intended to show the draft format and question style. The final survey content will be iterated with the UCB / Biogen team at the Phase 1 alignment workshop and validated through the Phase 4 pilot interviews.
A 7-attribute discrete choice experiment (illustrative), 12 choice tasks plus 1 hold-out for validation, c. 45 minutes total. Embeds the four differentiation areas UCB / Biogen flagged as priorities: fatigue (FATIGUE PRO), WoCBA placental-transfer evidence, earlier onset of steroid tapering, LupusQOL response.
What the survey measures: the relative value HCPs place on each attribute, expressed as willingness-to-prescribe (WTRx) shares. Captures the differentiation areas UCB / Biogen flagged: fatigue via the FATIGUE PRO multidimensional tool, WoCBA placental-transfer evidence, earlier onset of steroid tapering (week 8 vs comparators week 12), and LupusQOL response.
Who answers: rheumatologists in all 8 markets. At the Plus (recommended) tier, n=100 in the US and n=60 per ex-US market. Standard tier scales down to n=80 US / n=50 ex-US; Premium scales up to n=120 US / n=70 ex-US (full table in the Approach section). Quotas adjusted per market: community vs academic mix, regional spread, biologic-experience proportion.
What it produces: a ranked hierarchy of value drivers per market with 80% credible intervals, plus a cross-market view that shows which drivers matter most where.
The 7 attributes shown above are our illustrative starting point. Adding an attribute has real implications: it grows the number of choice screens (12 today; 14 to 16 at 8 attributes) and respondent fatigue starts to push response quality down past 45 minutes. We will run a long working session with the UCB / Biogen core team at the Phase 1 kickoff to lock the final attribute set, balancing strategic importance against survey burden.
Purpose: Captures coverage and utilisation-management (UM) decisions across plan archetypes (commercial, MA, Medicaid MCO; national vs regional). The Restriction-Depth follow-up is a short second exercise that asks given the coverage choice you just made, how strict would the prior authorisation, step therapy and population restrictions be at each price level? It produces price-by-restriction-depth trade-offs, not just price-by-coverage.
Sample: 25 MCO Part B coverage policy owners. Senior Medical Director or VP Medical Affairs (MD), or Specialty Drug Director (PharmD).
Analytical output: Lives-weighted price-access curve. Each respondent contributes weighted by reported covered lives. Capping rule: no single respondent contributes more than 15% of total sample-weighted lives.
Purpose: IDN formulary inclusion is the strategically novel question for an IV product launching against approved SC alternatives. We model the decision against varying SC-competitor availability, payer mix, and contracting terms.
Sample: 15 to 18 IDN institutional contracting leads (P&T chairs or pharmacy directors at academic and community IDN systems).
Analytical output: Formulary placement probability against each SC-competitor scenario, weighted by SLE infusion volume in the IDN.
Purpose: Captures subnational payer access decisions. Shared core attributes plus one to two country-specific items: UK ICB managed access, Italy regional payers (post-AIFA), Spain CCAA budget, China NRDL list-A / list-B / Huiminbao / CHIIDL listing.
Sample: 12 to 15 per market across UK, Italy, Spain, China. Regional payers, ICB clinical leads, autonomous community pharmacy directors, tier-3 (Class III) hospital P&T leads in tier-1 cities.
Analytical output: Regional access state probability, weighted by eligible SLE patient pool. Combined with the national survey to produce per-market access curves.
After the 12 choice tasks, HCPs answer three bridge questions that turn the option they chose into a prescribing share the simulator can use.
Which attribute appears in which instrument. The shared clinical core appears in every survey so respondents are reacting to the same DZP profile; stakeholder-specific attributes layer on top.
Read: mint ✓ = shared clinical core, magenta ✓ = stakeholder-specific attribute, dot = not in this instrument. Sample counts and instrument lengths trade off the number of stakeholder-specific attributes per cell.
A 90-minute moderated interview, run in every market except the US (all 7 ex-US markets), with three integrated techniques. Each component addresses a different failure mode of standard small-n pricing methods.
Respondents see 6 to 10 versions of DZP (different TPVP scenarios, evidence levels, comparator landscapes) and indicate the price and access conditions each would receive. Free-text price entry separately for broad and restricted population. Defensible at n=5 because each scenario is its own data point.
Algorithm narrows the WTP band over 3 to 5 paired comparisons: pick the more acceptable version. Each task halves the uncertainty interval. Typical convergence: from a €1,600 starting band to a €200 final band in 4 tasks.
Respondents rate DZP price relative to documented prior decisions on Benlysta, Saphnelo, and recent biologics in their market. Within-respondent ratio rather than absolute price, dramatically reducing noise floor at n=5.
The three components are pooled together, with the larger neighbouring samples and the H2 2025 qualitative findings informing the estimates. Each component's result is consistent with the others; the final corridor combines all three with a credible interval band. If recruitment shortfalls drop the sample below 5, we fall back to qualitative depth plus analogue calibration only.
Four screens shown sequentially during the structured portion of the 90-minute interview. Layout is illustrative; final stimulus locked in Phase 1 alignment with UCB / Biogen.
Respondent declined broad label (SMR Insufficient most likely). ASMR V in a subgroup where there is no appropriate comparator, corridor €4,400 to €4,900 net.
Respondent picked B*. Algorithm infers ITC + Δ3% BICLA worth ~€500 to this respondent. Next step tests against a different attribute trade-off (safety vs price).
Probe 2 repeats the exercise vs Benlysta IV France 2030 forecast (€4,200 net). Two anchors disciplined by within-respondent ratios; small-sample noise floor reduced.
Source: screens derived from the H2 2025 qualitative interview structure with UCB / Biogen, refined for the small-sample. Each screen is an illustrative mockup; final stimulus locked in Phase 1.
Up to here, each respondent group has answered different questions in different ways. The analysis brings three input streams together: DCE utilities, bridge-derived demand shares, and scenario flexes. They converge in one convolution that produces the integrated price-volume curve per market.
Every choice task across every instrument feeds a hierarchical Bayes model. Output: utility weight per attribute per respondent group, with 80% credible interval. Pools across cells so small samples borrow strength from larger ones.
The 2 to 4 bridge questions after each choice task convert discrete utilities into continuous probabilities (covered share, prescribing share-of-voice, restriction tier sensitivity). These are the simulator's continuous inputs.
Post-estimation flexes captured in the scenario library: Saphnelo SC adoption, France access route, TPVP readout, CBM intensity, China CHIIDL vs NRDL, pipeline density, IRA selection, MFN reference-basket. Not asked of respondents. See each scenario in detail ↓
For each market and price point we convolve payer access-state probability with HCP demand at that access state, weighted by patient pool, then apply the scenario flexes the user has selected. The curve re-renders live.
One curve per market with 80% credible interval. X: DZP price index. Y: percent eligible reached with positive access (A1 + A2 + A3). All three input streams visible behind the curve at any selected toggle state.
Three US respondent groups answer three different decisions. The bridge questions convert each respondent's discrete choice into a continuous unit (a share, a probability, a percentage) that combines cleanly with the others. That is why we do not need to test every attribute and every scenario inside each instrument: each group's answer translates into the same currency, the simulator multiplies them, and scenarios flex the inputs after estimation.
All three groups answer questions about the same six access states (A1 to A6) and the same DZP clinical profile (the shared clinical core in the attribute map). The bridge converts each group's specific decision into a probability that occupies the same probability space.
Once each group's utility is estimated, scenarios like Saphnelo SC adoption, cross-benefit management or IRA-selected Benlysta act as multipliers on the convolved output. We do not need to ask payers "how would you change if Benlysta were IRA-selected?" because that flex sits in the simulator, not in the survey.
In ex-US national markets the moderated interview replaces the online survey but the bridge still converts the answer into the same probability currency. The architecture is identical; only the data-collection mechanism varies by market.
Tab through the four mechanisms that connect respondent answers to the integrated curve. Read in order, or skip to the part you care about.
A1 through A6 are not labels we invented for this study. They are the access-state taxonomy validated in the H2 2025 qualitative phase, mapped against documented payer language across the 8 markets. Each state has a fixed meaning at the payer (decision label) and at the HCP (prescribing reality).
2 to 4 bridge questions per stakeholder, asked after the DCE. They convert discrete choices into continuous probability inputs the simulator can convolve. Wording fielded verbatim after pilot interview.
Standard MNL needs a substantial sample per cell. With our smallest cells at n=5 (ex-US national) and n=12 to 15 (subnational, US institutional), standard MNL fails to converge or produces wildly uncertain estimates.
A hierarchical Bayes model uses information from markets with more data to inform estimates in markets with less data. H2 2025 qualitative findings enter as prior expectations. Plainly: estimates are produced at every sample size; precision still scales with how much data we have.
If a cell fails to converge: simplify model, exclude flagged respondents, or re-estimate with revised priors. Reserve held for re-analysis cycle.
Each cell's contribution to the population-level output is weighted by what it represents, with caps to prevent outlier dominance.
Weighted by reported covered lives. National MCO at 30M lives contributes more than regional at 500k. No single respondent > 15% of total weighted lives.
Weighted by annual SLE biologic infusions. 5% single-respondent cap (tighter than MCO because HCP populations are larger).
UK ICB, Italy regions, Spain CCAA weighted by eligible SLE pool. China falls back to channel-stratified unweighted with sensitivity check.
These are the "Scenario flex inputs" from the analysis flow above, in detail. Each one acts as a multiplier on the convolved output. Each card below shows: how much the integrated curve shifts when the lever moves, which instrument's data captures the underlying signal, and what the simulator flexes post-delivery. Where comparator data is limited by publicly available publications, we cover plausible minimum and maximum likelihood outcomes rather than a single point.
Dominant Saphnelo SC adoption (>50% of franchise) drops US co-preferred zone by ~5 to 8 percentage points.
The ASMR V subgroup route is conditional on the placental-transfer PK evidence package being available at launch.
A denser competitive landscape shifts the curve modestly downward for DZP, particularly where novel-MoA differentiation drives WTRx.
H2 2025 qual flagged cross-benefit management as a key US payer concern.
CHIIDL listing at launch defends a higher price; NRDL list-B at subsequent annual review adds NRDL volume at a deeper but defensible discount, anchored against the CHIIDL price point.
We will not test MFN scenarios in the payer survey: it would inflate respondent burden without producing reliable answers.
| In-survey archetype | Anchors the design against |
|---|---|
| anti-IFN biologic | Saphnelo IV / SC (approved) |
| BAFF-targeted biologic | Benlysta IV / SC (approved); ianalumab |
| B-cell depleter | Gazyva (LN approved; SLE submission April 2026) |
| novel signalling / oral | Sotyktu, Rinvoq, cenerimod (in development) |
| novel-MoA biologic | litifilimab, nipocalimab (in development) |
Hypothetical profiles let us cover the plausible evidence range without forcing respondents to react to a specific company or trial. The simulator flexes named-product scenarios post-estimation; see the full pipeline table in the Opportunity section.
FLY Best (best-case PHOENYCS-FLY readout) shifts the curve up materially; FLY Base is the central scenario; PHOENYCS-GO alone (no FLY data at launch) drags access down.
IRA selection drops the US comparator anchor, which compresses the WTRx corridor for DZP. The MFN calculator tool runs alongside to score the downstream international reference effect.
Pre-BStabG, a no/weak added benefit rating would have forced DZP to a price at or below the cheapest comparator. The BStabG removes that ceiling, leaving GKV-Spitzenverband negotiation as the primary lever, and creates new degrees of freedom for DZP's German pricing strategy.
Putting six to seven competitive and policy uncertainties into the survey itself would inflate respondent burden well past the 45-minute cap and shrink design integrity. The simulator handles them post-delivery so UCB and Biogen can flex landscapes as new data emerges. Try the toggles in the Live simulator section below.
Four deliverables come out of this study, each fed by a specific part of the work. Below: what each is, what feeds it, and which RFP ask it answers.
Per-market chapters (one chapter per market, c. 25 to 35 slides each) plus a cross-market synthesis. Strategic recommendations for pricing corridors, evidence prioritisation, and launch sequencing. Decision-grade.
The web-based interactive tool with 20+ user-flexible toggles. Convolves payer access-state probability with HCP demand, weighted by patient pool, and applies the scenario flexes the user selects. Re-renders the price-volume curve live.
One tab per market plus cross-market summary. Each cell shows value, source, and confidence (high / medium / low). Feeds the patient-pool weighting in the simulator and the volume estimates in D1.
90-minute live training on the simulator at handoff. Walks through every toggle, common analytical questions UCB / Biogen will want to answer, and how to read the price-volume curve under different scenarios. Recording shared so it can be replayed.
D3 (population sizing) and the analysis layer feed D1 (PPT report) and D2 (simulator). D2 is built in parallel with the analysis so it ships at the same time as D1. D4 (training) hands D2 to the UCB / Biogen team so they can run their own scenarios after delivery without needing Access Infinity in the loop.
Below is a live working version of the interactive simulator that ships at end-2026. The embedded version uses illustrative utilities calibrated to H2 2025 qual point estimates. The production version, delivered at the end of the engagement, uses estimated utilities from this study's fielded data.
Embedded simulator uses illustrative utilities. Production simulator delivered at end-2026 with estimated utilities from this study.
Source: Illustrative utilities calibrated to H2 2025 qualitative payer research (UCB / Biogen DZP SLE) and analogue launches (Benlysta IV, Saphnelo IV per market). Methodology: hierarchical Bayes model stub function. Production version uses estimated utilities from fielded data.
The interactive simulator built at Plus tier already includes 20+ toggles, scenario library, CrI band, and 90-min training. Premium adds the four features below to make the simulator a self-service decision tool the team can run unaided through 2027.
Save current toggle state as Scenario A or B; both render together on the curve so you see the delta live.
Already rendered as the shaded band around the curve above. Premium widens the band by sub-population (HCP, payer, IDN) and lets you toggle which uncertainty source to visualise.
Which toggle moves the integrated curve the most? Sorted from largest to smallest impact at the current price point.
For the curve point at the selected price, decompose the integrated share into the three inputs: HCP demand, payer access state, population pool.
Mockups below preview the format and depth of the deliverable so you can see the shape of the outputs. Actual data points are filled in during the engagement. Approximately 280 to 320 charts and tables across the full deliverable; representative examples shown here.
Source: hierarchical Bayes model output, lives-weighted (US) / patient-pool-weighted (ex-US). Comparator anchor: forecasted 2029 to 2030 net price of an agreed comparator per market (UCB / Biogen internal forecast; comparator agreed at kickoff to ensure cross-market consistency where the relevant competitor differs by market) = 100. Index reflects 80% credible interval per market. Local-currency equivalents alongside reflect those forecasted values.
Source: hierarchical Bayes model projection of access-state probability mapped to access outcomes per Access Infinity rubric. France SMR Insufficient under broad label is the structural finding; ASMR V in the subgroup where there is no appropriate comparator is the realistic alternative route.
Each per-market chapter follows the same structure. Worked example below: Spain.
Anchors: forecast 2030 SLE pricing opportunity, BEL Spain €4,200 (post-biosimilar pressure); ANI Spain €7,400 (CEPS price-erosion trajectory). UCB / Biogen TPVP and own assumptions inform the DCE attribute levels and these reference lines.
Source: hierarchical Bayes model on HCP DCE, n = 60 Spanish rheumatologists. Magenta = top-2 drivers; mint = mid and lower drivers. Whisker = 80% credible interval.
Same chart produced per market and per TPVP scenario; cross-market access overlay in the cross-market chapter.
Source: cross-market hierarchical Bayes model on HCP DCE, weighted aggregate of all 8 markets. Quadrant cutoffs at median WTP and 25% cross-market variance.
Source: MaxDiff hierarchical Bayes model utility scores, pooled HCP + payer respondents weighted 60 / 40. Top-5 messages used in launch positioning brief; bottom-5 deprioritised or reframed.
Source: hierarchical Bayes model on US MCO DCE, n = 25 MCO Part B coverage policy owners, lives-weighted with 15% single-respondent cap. Plan archetype curves with 80% credible interval band shown for commercial.
Source: hierarchical Bayes model on US Institutional Contracting DCE, n = 15 to 18 IDN P&T leads, weighted by reported SLE infusion volume. Scenarios drawn from the competitive landscape chart in the Opportunity section.
Composite score weights: 50% MFN / IRP impact on US net price, 30% pricing potential, 20% reimbursement likelihood. Sequencing rationale tested against the MFN Price Risk Predictor scenario library.
Per-market contracting lever menu; each option estimated to move eligible access by the indicated percentage points at the point-estimate price corridor. Lever choice agreed with UCB / Biogen at delivery; modelled in the simulator post-delivery.
The methodology has been designed to degrade gracefully under each anticipated risk. The proposal includes this register explicitly to demonstrate risk discipline before execution begins.
| Risk | Severity | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Recruiting 15 high-quality subnational respondents per market (UK / IT / ES / CN) | High | Pre-booking the curated subnational network from kickoff. Screening criteria emphasise direct decision-making experience for SLE biologics. Fallback to ICB / regional payer (UK) and tier-1 hospital P&T (CN) where named subnational payers are not available. |
| Hierarchical Bayes model fails to produce stable estimates in any respondent group | Medium | Standard diagnostics reported at delivery. Documented fallbacks: simplify the model, exclude flagged respondents, re-estimate with revised assumptions. Reserve held for late-cycle re-analysis. |
| Pilot interviews reveal attribute count too high or comprehension issues | Medium | Pre-fielding gate. Drop attributes if needed; revise stimulus; re-confirm with UCB / Biogen. Reserve held for revisions. |
| Competitor data drops mid-fielding (e.g. cenerimod, litifilimab top-lines) | Medium | Simulator sensitivity layer for top-line-only readouts. Stimulus refresh budget held for material full-data publications. Decision gate at fielding mid-point to assess whether refresh is needed. |
| Translation issues delay ex-US fielding | Medium | Translation vendor selected at kickoff with qualification check. Translation plus independent back-translation across 6 ex-US languages, with link-checking and language-overlay testing before pilot. |
Compliance review sits ahead of pilot interviews (we approve before anything goes external). Analysis and simulator build run in parallel. Weekly working calls with the UCB / Biogen core team run from kickoff to hand-off. The detailed phase plan and deliverables for each phase live in the Approach section above.
Two review cycles on the main deliverables: draft and final. Within each cycle, only the US conducts country-level reviews of stimuli (other markets review at the global level). The compliance hold (Phase 4) is the gate before anything goes external, so we never field unapproved materials. Weekly working calls with the UCB / Biogen core team run from kickoff to final hand-off, with ad-hoc working sessions added when decisions are needed faster.
The same project leadership that ran the H2 2025 qualitative phase. Brett and George co-lead end-to-end (George also served as qualitative project co-lead in H2 2025). Emily was interim project manager on the qualitative phase and continues as project manager. Leigh Ann brings US market access and policy expertise as a partner-level advisor.
All costs net in EUR, exclusive of VAT. The Plus (recommended) tier is fully costed below across the five deliverables (D1 Kickoff and PM, D2 Quantitative survey, D3 External validation, D4 Analysis and simulator, D5 Report and hand-off). Professional fees (Access Infinity labour) and third-party / honoraria are shown separately. The 5% UCB / Biogen alliance rebate applies to professional fees only.
The Plus tier is costed in the matrix below at full 8-market scope. Standard and Premium are available as alternative scopes; pricing for those tiers will be provided on request once the preferred tier, market mix and any custom scope adjustments are confirmed with your team.
| Deliverable | Scope | Professional fees Access Infinity in-house (k€) |
Honoraria pass-through to respondents (k€) |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 · Kickoff, alignment & project management | |||
| Kickoff + alignment workshop | Cross-functional kickoff plus working session with the UCB / Biogen core team to prioritise and lock attributes and scenarios for testing | 15.5 | — |
| Ongoing project management | Weekly UCB / Biogen working calls, financial & resource management, escalation handling, governance | 43.0 | — |
| D1 sub-total | 58.5 | 0 | |
| D2 · Quantitative survey | |||
| Survey design (5 instruments, 1 draft cycle) | 5 instrument types tailored per market; embed differentiation areas (BICLA / SRI-4, fatigue, steroid taper, WoCBA, LupusQOL); country-specific items | 53.2 | — |
| Internal QA | Vendor programming sign-off, link testing across 8 markets, language-overlay review, pilot link UAT | 45.4 | — |
| Survey programming & set-up | DCE scripting, hosting & link generation across 5 instruments · in-house | 50.0 | — |
| Translation (forward) | Forward translation across the 6 ex-US languages, all five instrument types (HCP DCE, US MCO DCE, US IDN DCE, ex-US subnational DCE, ex-US national IDI guides) · in-house | 33.9 | — |
| Translation QA & in-country review | Back-translation reconciliation, native-speaker review per market, pilot-driven revisions · in-house | 9.0 | — |
| D2 sub-total | 191.5 | 0 | |
| D3 · External validation, fielding & honoraria | |||
| Pilot interviews | 5 IDIs (3 US, 2 UK) to confirm comprehension, timing & drop-off; revise & lock survey | 10.7 | — |
| Rheumatologist DCE fielding | 8 markets, n=520 total · internal hours = quota management, recruiter liaison, data QA | 11.5 | — |
| US MCO Part B coverage DCE fielding | n=22 · in-house recruitment by Fieldwork Manager · quota management (commercial / MA / Medicaid / national vs regional Blues) | 10.5 | — |
| US Hospital / IDN DCE fielding | n=15 · in-house recruitment; SLE infusion volume quota verification | 7.0 | — |
| Ex-US national 90-min IDIs | n=5 × 7 ex-US markets = 35 IDIs · in-house recruitment AND moderation; Fieldwork Manager handles recruitment logistics | 37.0 | — |
| Ex-US subnational payer DCE fielding | IT / ES / UK + CN sub-cells, n=54 total · in-house recruitment; country-specific item review; data QA | 24.5 | — |
| Recruitment fees (Rheumatologist DCE) | 520 respondents × specialist fieldwork agency recruitment fee · in-house, managed by our Fieldwork Manager | 104.0 | — |
| Honoraria: Rheumatologists | Per-respondent fee (MAX-of-vendor + 25% KOL buffer) · pass-through to respondents | — | 110.8 |
| Honoraria: US payers (MCO + IDN) | Per-respondent fee, US Part B coverage and institutional contracting · pass-through to respondents | — | 14.4 |
| Honoraria: IT / ES / UK subnational | Per-respondent fee, regional payer / ICB / CCAA · pass-through to respondents | — | 7.3 |
| Honoraria: CN subnational | Per-respondent fee, hospital P&T / Huiminbao / CHI insurer · pass-through to respondents | — | 2.3 |
| Honoraria: Ex-US national payers | FMV-based per-respondent fee, 90-min IDI format · pass-through to respondents | — | 13.4 |
| D3 sub-total | 205.2 | 148.2 | |
| D4 · Analysis, simulator & population sizing | |||
| Hierarchical Bayes analysis | Data cleaning, HB modelling across all instruments, lives + patient-pool weighting, hold-out validation, model diagnostics, sensitivity testing · in-house | 15.0 | — |
| Simulator build | Architecture, scenario library, 20+ toggles, validation against H2 2025 qual findings, wireframe demo at mid-project, final UAT with UCB core team · in-house | 45.0 | — |
| Population sizing model | Excel workbook with 1 tab per market + cross-market roll-up; sources & confidence tags for each data point; feeds simulator weighting | 20.8 | — |
| D4 sub-total | 80.8 | 0 | |
| D5 · Final report, hand-off & training | |||
| Final PPT deliverable | Per-market chapters covering rheum + payer findings; cross-market synthesis identifying differentiation opportunities; pricing & access recommendations linked to simulator outputs; 2 core-team review cycles | 66.0 | — |
| Final presentation + simulator hand-off + 90-min training session | Live walk-through with UCB / Biogen core team; recorded session for re-watching | 8.9 | — |
| D5 sub-total | 74.9 | 0 | |
| Sub-totals across D1 to D5 | 610.9 | 148.2 | |
| Sub-total, all deliverables | 759.1 | ||
| 5% UCB / Biogen alliance rebate (per cost-sheet terms) | −20.7 | ||
| Grand total, Plus tier · 8 markets · net of rebate | 738.4 k€ | ||
All prices net in k€. Professional fees are all Access Infinity in-house work, including programming, translation, recruitment, hierarchical Bayes analysis, and simulator build — none of these are outsourced. Honoraria are the only pass-through cost: per-respondent fees paid to the respondents themselves. The 5% UCB / Biogen alliance rebate applies as agreed per the cost-sheet terms (calculated on the labour-hour base from the rate-card sheet). Invoicing schedule: 25% kickoff, 25% instrument lock, 25% fielding complete, 25% final delivery. Honoraria calibrated on MAX-of-vendor (M3 / Sermo) per-respondent rates with a 25% KOL buffer for rheumatologists; ex-US national IDIs are FMV-based. Grand total in full EUR: €738,395 (sub-total €759,090; rebate €20,695).
A single 90-minute working session to walk the UCB / Biogen team through everything. Brett and George co-lead the discussion together; the wider Access Infinity team is on standby for any specific methodology or content question.
90 minutes, joint review of the proposal end to end. Walks through the strategic questions, the five-instrument design, the analysis approach, the simulator, deliverables and the costing. Decision points flagged for your input.
Co-led by: Brett Gardiner and George Forsyth.
Brett Gardiner, Senior Partner and Project Lead.
brett@access-infinity.com
Specific methodology or simulator questions ahead of the session: route through Brett and we will pull in the right team member.
Senior Partner at Access Infinity. Cambridge graduate with a clinical and academic background in immunology and genetics. Has led pricing and market access strategies for over 200 biopharmaceuticals across the full lifecycle, with a long-standing relationship with the UCB / Biogen alliance covering DZP, Bimzelx, Evenity, Cimzia, Rystiggo and Zilbrysq. SLE specialism dating back to the early launch of Benlysta in the 2010s, with continued work across pipeline assets in lupus and lupus nephritis.
Direct contact for methodology questions, kickoff scheduling, and any item in this proposal:
brett@access-infinity.com