Skip to content
Pipeline & Clinical Intelligence

Phase 3 Pipeline Analysis

Which Phase 3 candidates are most likely to reshape your TA.

A structured framework for analyzing the global Phase 3 pipeline — to inform pre-launch competitive intelligence, BD targeting, portfolio risk and forecast decisions.

Decision angle

"Which Phase 3 assets will materially reshape our TA economics in the next 36 months?"

TL;DR

Phase 3 success rates average 50–60% globally but vary 30–80% by therapy area, modality and sponsor. Probability-of-success-weighted pipeline analysis exposes which competitors actually matter.

The Phase 3 pipeline is the single most important leading indicator for TA-level competitive dynamics. The wrong way to analyze it: count assets. The right way: PoS-weight them and apply timeline and endpoint risk.

Three numbers per asset

Probability of success, expected launch year, expected peak share — those three numbers turn a list into a forecast. Apply them, sum across credible launches, and the answer becomes “which competitors actually matter,” not “which competitors exist.”

Run the pipeline as a live competitive engine

Update on every readout. Tag every primary endpoint, every AdComm, every regulatory action. The team that runs this system, not the team that buys quarterly reports, owns the launch sequencing decision.

Key insights

What we’re seeing in the data.

01

PoS varies massively by TA

Onc Phase 3 PoS is much lower than cardio/metabolic.

02

Sponsor track record matters

Big-pharma sponsors with strong Phase 2/3 track record have measurably higher PoS.

03

Endpoint risk is the silent killer

Trials with novel endpoints face higher regulatory uncertainty even after positive readouts.

04

Crowded indications ≠ crowded launches

30 candidates in Phase 3 doesn’t mean 30 launches — most slip, fail or de-prioritize.

50–60%
Avg P3→approval
Industry
30–80%
Range by TA
Industry
36 mo
P3 readout horizon
Avg
PoS
Always weight pipeline
Best practice
Decision framework

How to think about it.

  1. 01

    Pull all P3 assets in scope

    Citeline / Cortellis / ClinicalTrials.gov.

  2. 02

    Score PoS per asset

    TA, modality, sponsor, prior data, endpoint.

  3. 03

    Apply timeline risk

    Recruitment status, primary completion, regulatory pathway.

  4. 04

    Build PoS-weighted launches

    Forecast over realistic launches, not raw counts.

  5. 05

    Update on every readout

    P3 readouts and sub-group data shift PoS — refresh quarterly.

Considerations

What separates a good answer from a defensible one.

Sub-group data hides risk

Positive ITT can mask weak sub-group results that affect label and pricing.

Endpoint translation

Surrogate endpoints face HTA scrutiny — model the gap.

Regulatory pathway

Accelerated/conditional approval changes peak revenue trajectory.

Combination dependencies

Some P3 assets only succeed within combination — model fully.

Sources & tools

Where the signal comes from.

Citeline Pharmaprojects Cortellis Drug R&D ClinicalTrials.gov BioPharmaCatalyst EMA / FDA AdComm calendars
FAQ

Common questions.

How accurate are PoS estimates?

At TA × phase × modality, ±10% — useful for portfolio decisions but never over-precise.

How often does PoS change after readout?

Materially. Positive primary endpoint shifts asset PoS to >85% in most cases; failure pushes it to <10%.

Want this answered on your data?

We build decision systems on top of analyses like this — so the next question takes minutes, not weeks.

Talk to a strategist