2024 Global Pharma Outlook Looks Challenging For Pharma Cos.

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...
- Advertisement -

Certain tectonic shifts in the healthcare market have gone on to push the pharma sector toward painful transformations in recent years. It is indeed quite evident that the traditional commercial model has gone one be upended permanently. In 2024, one can as well expect economic pressures, making industry-wide changes in competition as well as market expectations, and, at the same time, tightening of the global regulatory environment to intensify.

Apparently, addressing these issues goes on to require an immediate shift to a new market-driven model; however, as history continues to suggest, this happens to be much easier said than done. The recently released Numerof & Associates 2024 Global Pharma Outlook underscores some of the major areas wherein pharma companies will go on to face immense challenges as they principally rethink old assumptions about their present business model.

One significant challenge is the growing consolidation when it comes to healthcare delivery. Out of the over 6,000 U.S. hospitals, just 1,500 go on to function independently as of today. An increase in mergers and acquisitions- M&A has gone on to create certain fewer but bigger and more complex as well as powerful healthcare systems, thereby shifting the power dynamics of drug purchase decision-making.

Physicians who at one time happened to be driving those decisions are, to date, just one voice within the room. C-suite executives as well as population-based decision-makers- PBDMs, who are a part of the cross-functional committees within huge integrated delivery networks- IDNs, now happen to be holding the clout. This has indeed added to the emergence of a new approach so as to managing large enterprise accounts.

The 2023 Commercial Model Report survey determined that commercial leaders happen to be building more experienced account teams, which are led by National Account Managers, Strategic Account Directors or Key Account Managers. These leaders, along with the teams they orchestrate, go on to bring the advanced skill sets needed to engage IDN administrators and, at the same time, answer a range of pointed questions, right from pricing considerations to reimbursement assurances to also demonstrating the value of the product relative to competitors and articulating the evidence of improved clinical outcomes evidence over the present standard of care. This new approach when it comes to strategic account management happens to be very much a work-in-progress since organizations struggle to sync internally on an approach that’s optimal. As told by one of the respondents within the survey, it feels radical, and far from smooth, as this apparently turns the entire organization upside down.

Rising hospital consolidation has also gone on to prompt other alterations at the customer level. Not just the customer looks out far different than only 5 short years ago, but the ways in which manufacturers go on to engage their customers have also altered quite dramatically. When COVID-19 hospital lockdowns had forced the sales teams to communicate by way of Zoom calls as well as email, many executives went on to think that it would be a setback, but a temporary one. But even as hospital access has gone on to resume quite largely, continued staffing dearth’s and rising workload demands have gone on to place a premium on physicians’ time. Lower access has apparently also forced manufacturers to rethink their approach to customer engagement.

Although in-person meetings are still going to be important when it comes to certain scenarios, virtual engagements are here to stay. The Commercial Model report also found that in most companies, 50-70% of the customer engagement now takes place virtually. Although this has given rise to omnichannel as well as other novel forms when it comes to engagement, such as enhanced digital marketing as well as data analytics capabilities, customer engagement is pretty difficult. As per one of the survey respondents, the genuity of the digital happens to be a moving target, and that they are not confident that they happen to be really reaching the targets they need to be at effectively with this kind of format.

As developers go on to think strategically when it comes to how they manage large enterprise accounts as well as engage with customers, functional complacency has also been shattered due to rising regulation.

It is well worth noting how price regulations in the Inflation Reduction Act- IRA in the U.S., teamed with sweeping regulatory industry reforms throughout Europe, have gone on to force manufacturers to re-examine certain core assumptions when it comes to their approach to R&D, market access, portfolio pricing, budgets, as well as underlying costs. In regards to the IRA, organizations are indeed waking up to the hard, novel reality that they will have broad, downstream effects on their portfolios. Although the product will likely not be subject to the IRA in the near term, it is sure going to catch up very soon in terms of the negotiation process, opined one of the survey respondents. And, while pharma organizations have already filed court challenges to the IRA, fallout from the law is already underway. And the sector must brace for more pushback from the lawmakers, other stakeholders who are on the pinnacle of the IRA victory, and also regulators, as all of them continue to try to rein in big pharma.

For some years, the influence when it comes to an array of healthcare delivery stakeholders has been rising. It is well to be noted that the power has increased as drug purchase decision-making goes further away from the physicians. Payers and providers happen to be holding the line when it comes to healthcare costs by saying no to fresh products and price rises. They happen to also be demanding that manufacturers put forward hard economic as well as clinical data in order to justify any alterations to the bottom-line impact. In 2024, pushbacks when it comes to drug prices will go on to continue to intensify as far as payers, pharmacy benefit managers- PBMs as well as consumers are concerned, who happen to be taking on more of the cost burden since health insurance premiums keep skyrocketing.

The pharma backdrop happens to be more volatile than ever before since the regulatory requirements go on to raise the cost as well as the time required to create new products, payers across the world clamp down when it comes to new products, the clout of physicians diminishes, and public distrust within the industry and government scrutiny touch altogether new highs. Collectively, these elements will go on to have quite prominent implications when it comes to commercial strategy in the time to come.

It is well to be noted that the manufacturers must go on to think of new ways when it comes to all three pillars of commercialization, which are product development, getting the products reimbursed at a price that is profitable, and also market adoption. One of the commercial leaders in the survey said that mastering these pillars holds the key to success and that the market looks to have scientific proof of value, and one needs to engage the large and organized customers in a strategic way, in a more sophisticated fashion, so as to be successful.

However, just as one did not get to this position overnight, shifting to a new model is indeed going to be a slow and bumpy journey. As the survey revealed, one of the prominent hurdles for executives is often showing their own senior leadership the effect of their novel commercial approaches as well as making the case as to why they should go ahead with building on the alterations that are already in progress.

It is well to be noted that the old commercial model happens to be rapidly becoming obsolete. In an industry that goes on to recover from long-standing self-inflicted wounds and apparently, in a way, was not able to capitalize on the historic achievements during the pandemic due to Operation Warp Speed, failure to shift and progress to a new strategic as well as an integrated approach is going to continue to have consequences that look quite devastating.

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »