The commercial contribution of clinical studies for pharmaceutical drugs

• We model the impact of clinical studies on sales and promotion expenditures.
• Higher valence increases DTCA, DTP promotion, and sales.
• Higher dispersion decreases DTCA, but does not affect DTP promotion or sales.
• Higher volume has no effect on DTP promotion, increases sales, but decreases DTCA.
• Omitting clinical studies leads to an overestimation of promotional effectiveness.

Pharmaceutical drugs are rigorously evaluated through clinical studies. The commercial consequences of such clinical studies, both to the promotion for and sales of drugs, are largely under-researched. The present study answers the following research questions: 1) How does the evolution of clinical study outcomes affect product sales? 2) How does the evolution of clinical study outcomes affect a firm's promotion expenditures to physicians and consumers? 3) Is the assessment of the responsiveness of sales to promotion expenditures biased when the analyst omits the role of clinical studies? We summarize a comprehensive body of clinical studies in three metrics: valence, dispersion, and volume. We extend the literature with the following findings. A higher valence and volume of clinical studies (i.e., more positive and larger number of studies) increase sales. A higher valence of clinical studies increases spending on both direct-to-consumer advertising and direct-to-physician promotion. A higher dispersion among clinical studies decreases spending on direct-to-consumer advertising. A higher volume of clinical studies has no effect on direct-to-physician promotion, but decreases direct-to-consumer advertising. Furthermore, the results show that omitting these metrics from a market response model leads to an overestimation of the responsiveness of sales to promotion expenditures.