What physicians think patients are worried about may not match real patient perspectives. A leading biopharmaceutical company developing a treatment for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria (CSU) had a working assumption about how patients weighed treatment side effects — an assumption shaped by physician feedback and MSL field intelligence, and one that was actively informing patient education strategy.
Inspire designed a structured patient insights survey to put that assumption to the test, reaching real CSU patients directly through our authenticated community of 3+ million members. What they found changed how the team communicated with patients — and with their own field teams.
This case study includes:
- The assumption being made — and where it came from How physician-reported intelligence was shaping the team’s understanding of patient priorities, and why that created a blind spot.
- What patients actually said Direct, unprompted patient-reported data on how CSU patients rank and think about treatment side effects.
- How the findings were put to use The downstream impact on patient education materials, MSL conversations, and how the team approaches safety messaging.
Download the case study to see where the gap was — and how closing it changed their approach.