COPD Fixed-Dose Combination: Scoping a $10B Asset's Next Bet

Janhvi's client had acquired a $10 billion pharmaceutical asset that was underperforming against its projected market share. Rather than accept the shortfall, they came to Trinity with a specific question: could a new fixed-dose combination of that asset unlock a larger market, and if so, was there a patient segment where it would actually work?

The stakes were high. Clinical trials are expensive, and the client needed to know whether to invest before committing to a full trial program. Janhvi's team was tasked with determining whether a viable market existed and, if so, which patient population it sat in.

Designing the Research

Janhvi owned the research design end to end. She structured the study around 30 expert interviews with key stakeholders in the COPD space, building the discussion guide, coordinating vendor recruitment, and leading the analysis of the qualitative data collected.

The research focused on understanding unmet need across two distinct patient segments: those with low eosinophil levels and those with high eosinophil levels. The high eosinophil population was already well-served by existing products. The low eosinophil segment, by contrast, had a meaningful gap that current treatments did not address.

The Finding and the Recommendation

The data pointed clearly in one direction. The new fixed-dose combination had a viable path only in the low eosinophil segment, where unmet need was real and existing products fell short. Pursuing the high eosinophil population would yield only marginal incremental share, and the cost of a separate trial for that segment would not be justified by the return.

Janhvi's recommendation was to run the trial exclusively in the low eosinophil population. That segment represents approximately 70 to 75% of total COPD patients, meaning the client could still capture a substantial share of the overall market while avoiding the cost of a broader, less targeted trial program.

The client had a commercial incentive to justify the original acquisition price, which created some tension with the findings. Janhvi and her team reframed the recommendation as a cost-benefit analysis, showing that the focused trial approach still offered a strong market opportunity, rather than presenting it as a verdict on the original investment decision.