Loading...
In pharma the constraint is not creativity or budget — it is review. Oneskai builds content systems and measurement that move through medical, legal and regulatory workflow rather than around it.
Review governs throughput, regulation separates the audiences, and the rules change at every border. All three shape the work before a channel is chosen.
Every promotional asset passes mandatory medical, legal and regulatory review before publication. Cycle times run to weeks and rejections trigger rebuilds, so throughput — not creative ambition — is what limits a programme.
Unbranded disease education and branded product promotion are separated by regulation rather than preference. That separation decides what content may exist on which properties, how audiences are verified, and what may be said at all.
What is permitted in the US differs substantially from the EU and UK, including whether branded public-facing communication may exist. Content is scoped by market from the outset rather than localised afterwards.
The failure mode is almost never creative quality. It is process design.
Creative is designed first, submitted to MLR, then rebuilt from scratch. Claims written to maximum ambition guarantee rejection cycles, and each cycle costs weeks the calendar does not have.
Disease education and product promotion mixed on the same site, with gating retrofitted as an interstitial. That is a regulatory problem rather than a UX one, and it is expensive to unwind later.
Demand around scientific meetings peaks sharply and briefly. Content briefed six weeks out cannot clear review before the embargo lifts, so the asset publishes into a window that has already closed.
Evidence, peers and guidelines compound over months. Treating that pathway as a funnel with a close date is the fastest way to lose the audience.
Usually through congress coverage, journal reading or a patient case that current options handle poorly. Unbranded disease-state education reaches this stage; product promotion does not yet register.
Trial design, endpoints, patient populations, statistical significance, safety profile. Accuracy and completeness matter more than emphasis, and overstating efficacy here loses the clinician permanently.
Key opinion leader positions, society guidance, peer discussion and real-world experience. Digital plays a supporting role — the primary influence is professional, not promotional.
Formulary status, prior authorisation burden, reimbursement, patient cost and administration logistics. Access barriers stop more adoption than clinical scepticism does.
Early prescribing experience determines whether use continues. Patient support programmes, adherence resources and access assistance decide whether initial trial becomes standing practice.
Your medical, legal and regulatory functions define these. This is how we build so that what reaches them is approvable on the first pass.
Promotional material may only reference approved indications, populations and dosing. Any content implying use beyond the label is out of scope regardless of how strong the supporting evidence appears.
Efficacy claims carry a corresponding obligation to present safety information with comparable prominence. Layouts are designed with that requirement built in rather than bolted on at review.
Where branded material may only reach healthcare professionals, verification is a regulatory requirement. Gating is designed into the architecture, not implemented as a checkbox interstitial.
Every assertion links to the specific study, guideline or label section supporting it. A maintained reference library is what makes rapid review possible instead of a fresh argument each cycle.
What is permitted in the US differs substantially from the EU, UK and other markets — including whether branded public-facing communication may exist at all. Content is scoped by market from the outset.
Any channel accepting user input can surface an adverse event report, triggering pharmacovigilance duties. Social and comment-enabled properties need monitoring and routing agreed before launch.
This summarises constraints we design around; it is not regulatory advice and does not substitute for your medical, legal and regulatory review. Every asset goes through your process, and we build assuming it will.
In life sciences the constraint arrives before the channel, so each capability below is built to be reviewed and approved by your MLR function before it goes live.
An approved component library of claims, references and visuals that assembles into new assets instead of restarting review each time.
Claims matrix · Reference library · Component design · Reuse trackingTwo tracks structured separately from the start, with verification and gating designed to the requirement rather than retrofitted.
Information architecture · HCP verification · Gating design · Separate analyticsAnswer the clinical questions your audience actually searches, routed to medical information rather than to sales.
HCP query coverage · Evidence content · Schema · Unbranded disease educationContent and demand planned backwards from meeting dates and embargo timing, so assets clear review before the window opens.
Congress calendar · Embargo planning · Session demand · Post-meeting follow-throughEngagement depth by content type and audience segment, with no individual-level clinician tracking anywhere in the stack.
Portal registrations · Engagement depth · Query coverage · De-identified reportingReview throughput treated as a programme metric, because if it takes eleven weeks no channel strategy compensates.
Cycle-time tracking · Rework analysis · Pre-approved modules · Process designWe do not begin with a fixed channel package. We assess review throughput, content architecture, congress planning and measurement design before deciding where to focus.
A claims matrix agreed with medical affairs, a maintained reference library and a pre-approved module set, so new assets assemble rather than restart.
Structural separation of the two tracks, with audience verification and gating designed into the architecture rather than added as an interstitial.
A six-month calendar driven backwards from meeting and embargo dates, with review time booked into the schedule as a fixed cost.
Evidence and medical information coverage mapped against how clinicians actually search, referenced properly and routed correctly.
An aggregate reporting model built for the constraint: engagement depth, verified registrations and query coverage instead of person-level data.
Our life sciences work centres on digital infrastructure, content systems and search visibility — not medical affairs strategy, regulatory submissions or promotional review. We work alongside your medical, legal and regulatory functions and defer to them on every question of what may be claimed.
We treat MLR as a design constraint to build around, in the same way a structural engineer treats load limits. Arguing with it is not a strategy.Oneskai life sciences engagement policy
If you need an agency to argue for more ambitious promotional positioning, we are not that partner. Saying so at the outset saves everyone a procurement cycle.
Talk to us about scopeThe plan is scheduled backwards from MLR capacity and congress dates, because those are the fixed points everything else has to fit around.
Work with medical affairs and regulatory to establish the approved claims matrix, reference library and jurisdictional boundaries. Nothing is produced before this exists — it is what prevents rebuild cycles.
Unbranded and branded properties structured separately, with audience verification and gating designed to the regulatory requirement rather than retrofitted afterwards.
An approved component library of claims, references and visuals that assembles into multiple assets, so each new one draws on pre-approved modules and review shortens.
Congress and data-release timing drive the publishing plan, with aggregate engagement reporting alongside operational MLR metrics and cycle-time reduction treated as a deliverable.
Clear answers to the review, architecture and measurement questions that shape a useful engagement.
Medical, legal and regulatory review is the mandatory approval process every promotional pharmaceutical asset passes through before publication. Cycle times commonly run several weeks and rejections trigger rebuilds. Because it is a fixed constraint on throughput, planning that ignores it produces campaigns that miss their windows.
Structurally, not cosmetically. Unbranded disease education lives on separate properties with no product reference, its own navigation and its own analytics. Branded material sits behind professional verification where required. The separation is built into information architecture from the start, because retrofitting it is expensive and risky.
Indirectly and often substantially. Most cycle time is consumed by rework on claims that were never going to be approved. An agreed claims matrix and a pre-approved modular component library mean new assets assemble from approved parts rather than starting fresh, which shortens review considerably.
It depends entirely on jurisdiction. Branded prescription advertising to the public is permitted in a small number of markets, notably the United States, under strict conditions including fair balance requirements. In most other markets, including the EU and UK, it is prohibited and only unbranded disease education is available.
At aggregate level. We report engagement depth by content type, verified portal registrations, and query coverage across clinical topics — none of which requires tracking identifiable individual clinicians. That gives enough signal to allocate effort while staying well inside appropriate boundaries.
Around six months, driven backwards from the meeting date. Assets need to clear MLR before embargo lifts, demand peaks sharply and briefly around presentation dates, and the window closes quickly. Content briefed six weeks out reliably misses the peak it was created for.
We build the content system, information architecture, search strategy and measurement. Scientific accuracy and clinical writing require medical writers accountable within your organisation or a specialist medical communications partner. We work alongside them rather than substituting for them.
We map your approved claims, reference library and jurisdictional boundaries into a modular content system — so future assets assemble from pre-approved components instead of restarting review each time.
