A clinically specific population
The patient definition required a confirmed diagnosis and the genetic mutation relevant to the therapy.
Case study · Rare skeletal dysplasia
Patient counts tell
only part of the story.
How a pharmaceutical company evaluated lab-based patient finding for a rare disease launch—and found greater provider relevance behind a smaller identified population.
ClientA pharmaceutical company preparing a rare disease therapy launch
Therapeutic areaRare skeletal dysplasia
ProgramLab-based patient identification and HCP alerts
13Patients identified with the target genetic mutation
13Unique HCPs linked to the identified patients
8HCPs meeting the client’s Provider of Interest criteria
The challenge
Find the relevant patients.
Then find the specialists.
The company was launching a first-line therapy for a rare skeletal dysplasia. It needed a clinically specific patient population and HCP connections that could support outreach.
Limitations in claims-based finding
The client’s initial claims-based approach was inefficient for pinpointing this narrowly defined population.
Specialist relevance
An identified patient needed to connect to an HCP who met the client’s criteria for diagnosing or managing the disorder.
Useful outreach opportunities
The team needed to evaluate the provider context behind each source’s patient count before deciding how to engage HCPs.
The evaluation
Compare the connection,
not just the count.
The client evaluated Prognos and another lab-data provider. The important distinction was how the identified population connected to relevant specialists.
Start with the lab finding
Identify patients with the target genetic mutation relevant to the client’s therapy.
Link the HCP context
Connect patient identifications with observed providers in the available data.
Apply the client’s criteria
Evaluate which HCPs qualify as Providers of Interest for the client’s specialist-focused engagement.
What is a Provider of Interest? In this case, a POI was an HCP who met the client’s specialist criteria. The definition gave the team a consistent way to assess provider relevance.
The results
A smaller patient count.
More Providers of Interest.
Prognos identified 13 patients linked to 13 unique HCPs. Eight HCPs met the client’s POI criteria.
The comparison provider identified 20 patients, with three reported POI connections. Its larger initial patient count did not translate into more specialist-relevant opportunities for this client.
The evaluation illustrates why clinical specificity and provider context belong alongside volume in a patient-finding assessment.
Providers of Interest
Based on the client’s specialist criteria
| Reported measure | Prognos | Comparison |
|---|---|---|
| Patients identified | 13 | 20 |
| POIs | 8 | 3 |
Clinical signal + relevant HCP context
made the difference in this evaluation.
made the difference in this evaluation.
The value was in identifying providers the client could assess for engagement, beyond the raw number of patient records.
What the case illustrates
Build patient finding
around the next useful step.
A useful evaluation connects the population definition, the provider criteria, and the intended HCP workflow.
Define the clinical signal.
Specify the relevant test, genetic finding, and patient criteria before comparing counts.
Evaluate provider relevance.
Assess how identified patients connect to the specialists important to your program.
Compare against the same criteria.
Review patient volume together with provider relevance to assess the opportunities each source can support.
Explore the approach
Every patient matters.
So does the care context.
Bring your indication, lab criteria, and HCP engagement priorities to a conversation with Prognos.
Find the patient signal.
Understand the provider connection.
Talk with Prognos about clinically specific patient finding and the HCP context that can support your program.