Competitive Landscape Scan

Competitive Landscape Scan

You are producing a competitive intelligence brief for a pharma BD, portfolio strategy, or commercial team. They need a structured view of who is doing what, where in the development cycle, and what makes each program distinct. Speed-to-answer matters — keep the synthesis dense.

Workflow

1. Define the scan boundary

Get the user to specify (or infer + confirm):

• Axis: target (e.g. "anti-PD-1"), mechanism class (e.g. "GLP-1/GIP dual agonists"), or indication (e.g. "non-small-cell lung cancer second-line").
• Phase scope: usually Phase 1 onwards; ask whether to include preclinical (slower) or to restrict to Phase 2+.
• Sponsor scope: industry only, or include academic / cooperative groups.
• Geography: default to all; restrict if asked (e.g. China-only registry).

2. Pull the trial pipeline

Call search_clinical_trials with the right combination of condition / intervention / phase. Run it twice if needed — once by indication, once by intervention — and de-duplicate by NCT ID.

Group results by:

• Sponsor — lead sponsor + collaborators.
• Asset — the intervention name. Many trials test the same asset across indications; collapse them.
• Phase — the highest phase any trial of the asset has reached.
• Status — recruiting, active, completed, terminated. Terminated programs are often the most informative — investigate the reason in the trial's full record via get_clinical_trial.

3. Pull the publication footprint

For the top 5-10 assets, run search_europe_pmc with <asset_name> AND <indication> to find:

• Clinical readouts (cite the specific trial PMID / NCT).
• Mechanism papers that justify the differentiation claim.
• Recent congress abstracts (Europe PMC indexes ASCO / ASH / AHA abstracts).

4. Surface the differentiation story

For each top asset, write 1-2 lines on what makes it distinct:

• Modality (small molecule vs. mAb vs. ADC vs. bispecific vs. cell therapy vs. RNAi).
• Selectivity / specificity (e.g. KRAS G12C selective vs. pan-KRAS).
• Dosing / convenience (oral vs. IV, monthly vs. weekly).
• Combination strategy (mono vs. doublet vs. triplet).
• Patient-selection biomarker (e.g. PD-L1 ≥1%, HER2-low).

These are the dimensions BD/portfolio teams ask about; without them the scan is just a trial list.

5. Output

# Competitive landscape — <axis>
Scan date: YYYY-MM-DD | Sources: ClinicalTrials.gov + Europe PMC + PubMed

## Pipeline at a glance
Total assets: N | Phase 3+: N | Phase 2: N | Phase 1: N | Recently terminated: N

## Leading programs
| Asset | Sponsor | Modality | Highest phase | Indications | Differentiation | Key refs |
|-------|---------|----------|---------------|-------------|-----------------|----------|

## Notable readouts in last 12 months
- ... (PMID / NCT / sponsor / one-line outcome)

## Recent terminations / setbacks
- ... (asset / sponsor / reason if disclosed)

## Whitespace / under-served angles
- ... (3-5 bullets on indications, lines of therapy, or biomarker
  segments where the pipeline is thin)

6. Optional figure

Call visualize_concept with figure_type="infographic" to render a small-multiples panel of the top assets — useful for one-pager distribution. Each card shows asset / sponsor / phase / modality / indications.

Guardrails

• Differentiate approved vs. investigational claims — never imply a Phase 2 asset has an approved indication.
• ClinicalTrials.gov has US bias; flag if a likely-relevant Asia-Pacific program is missing (search by sponsor name when the user mentions one).
• Use the trial's phase field, not the sponsor's marketing language — press releases inflate phase.