portfolio

I created this case study as a compact omnichannel pharmaceutical-promotional exercise built around a completely fictional FDA-approved bispecific antibody for rheumatoid arthritis. The campaign includes a branded HCP product webpage for rheumatologists and other specialists, a concise branded HCP promotional email, and a branded patient-facing web asset. I adapted the same controlled clinical and safety information across each channel while changing terminology, level of statistical detail, information hierarchy, and call to action for the intended audience.

I treated the exercise as U.S. prescription-drug promotion operating within an FDA/OPDP and MLR-review environment, with particular attention to truthful and nonmisleading claims, claim substantiation, fair balance, material limitations, benefit-risk presentation, and consistency with the fictional prescribing-information source. CIRAVYX, dunecimab-qzrx, its molecular targets, clinical-development program, trial data, indication, and safety profile are entirely invented for this exercise and do not represent any actual Sanofi or other pharmaceutical product or program. The abbreviated source package is intentionally simpler than a real U.S. Prescribing Information document but is detailed enough to function as the controlled source for the claims made in the campaign.

I kept the campaign tightly grounded in the fictional source package. The indication remains limited to adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis following inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate. The efficacy claims use prespecified RA-301 endpoints and do not substitute vague statements such as “better disease control” for the measured outcomes. When I use the 52.9% ACR50 response, I retain the placebo comparison and study context rather than presenting the active-treatment percentage in isolation. I also preserve the most consequential limitation throughout the campaign: RA-301 had no active comparator.

The greatest potential overstatement involved the bispecific mechanism. I intentionally did not claim that simultaneous RILA/SOVA binding provides “broader,” “deeper,” “more complete,” or superior disease control. Those descriptions may sound intuitively reasonable, but none follows from the fictional evidence. I also avoided using the mechanism as the causal explanation for the observed efficacy result. Instead, the copy explains what the molecule is designed to bind and separately explains what happened in the clinical trial. In the consumer asset, I made that distinction particularly explicit because a patient could reasonably interpret “targets two pathways” as “twice as effective” without further context.

I also treated risk information as part of the promotional communication rather than an attachment to it. Serious infection risk appears alongside efficacy in the HCP email, while the webpage provides both an adverse-reaction overview and more prominent Important Safety Information. The patient asset converts serious-infection incidence into an approximate natural frequency but does not use that transformation to minimize the risk. Common adverse effects, laboratory risks, immunization considerations, and limitations around concomitant immunosuppression are retained in language appropriate to each audience.

A real MLR team could reasonably challenge several details. It might want the mechanism copy narrowed further depending on the underlying nonclinical evidence; require additional context around the radiographic endpoint; question how prominently the lack of active comparator should appear; adjust headline language such as “Two-target design”; or require different risk placement based on final visual execution. I would expect that process. My role as the writer would be to show exactly where each claim came from, understand the concern behind a requested change, and revise the language without either compromising source fidelity or unnecessarily stripping the communication of its promotional purpose.