Merix · Internal preview

HQ Intelligence Layer & Insight Hub

Live data connected

HQ Intelligence Layer

Command view
Indication
Region
Segment

Patient & HCP ecosystem

Where patients, HCPs, and payers intersect for this indication.

Updated 6 min ago
Ecosystem density
HCP clustersPatient signals
Top HCP clusters by opportunityWeighted by patients · last 90 days
Pericardial centers92/100

High confirmed patient volume · low visit coverage

Community cardiology78/100

Rising diagnostic activity · modest ARCALYST awareness

Rheumatology71/100

Frequent inflammatory workups · under-penetrated

GTM signals at a glance

Last 30 days
New high-potential HCPs+42vs. prior 30 days
Plans with tightening access7flagged for review
MA evidence deployments128by unique HCP (aggregated)

Market Research Insight Hub & Chat Engine

Ask questions across years of advisory boards, panels, and surveys.

Insight chat
Connected to: 14 advisory boards, 8 quant studies, 63 IDIs, 27 internal debriefs (no PHI).
Which HCP segments look under-penetrated given where recurrent pericarditis patients are actually showing up?
Based on the last 18 months of research, three segments stand out:

1. Community cardiology
High frequency of chest pain and pericarditis-like workups, but low spontaneous ARCALYST awareness. HCPs here tend to default to conventional anti-inflammatory regimens and express uncertainty about when escalation is appropriate.

2. Regional academic centers
Moderate patient volume with strong guideline familiarity, but low exposure to real-world ARCALYST data. Advisory boards highlight a desire for more outcomes data in "non-classic" presentations.

3. Rheumatology
Sees a subset of recurrent inflammatory cases that overlap with the RP population. Surveys show interest in IL-1 inhibition conceptually, but limited clarity on referral vs. initiation.

If the goal is near-term growth, a coordinated push into community cardiology + regional academic centers is likely to have the highest impact, with MA focused on diagnostic confidence and clear "when to escalate" triggers.
From an HQ perspective, what should Commercial and MA respectively emphasize for community cardiology?
For community cardiology, the research suggests three priorities:

Commercial
• Simple framing of labeled use and access expectations.
• Clear, referral-friendly messaging to centers of excellence.

Medical Affairs
• Diagnostic recognition cues and differential diagnosis support.
• Evidence around escalation triggers and outcomes in recurrent cases.
• Reactive scientific support for complex or atypical presentations.
Ask a question across all research… (e.g. "Where are we over-spending given patient volume?")
Data boundaries & air-gapsHQ analytics only
  • No PHI in HQ. The HQ Intelligence Layer operates on aggregated research, modeled signals, and de-identified data only—no directly identifiable patient information is ingested or exposed.
  • Strict MA–Commercial air-gap. Medical Affairs and Commercial users work in separate workspaces. MA sees scientific questions and evidence needs; Commercial sees promotional and access-relevant views. Individual workspace views never mix.
  • Clinical recruitment stays with CROs. Clinical teams see ecosystem-level patterns (e.g. site/region potential), not recruitment flows or patient-level data. CROs and trial systems own recruitment operations.
  • Aggregate, role-appropriate metrics only. Counts such as "MA evidence deployments" and "plans with tightening access" are shown in aggregate for HQ planning; underlying person-level detail is constrained to the appropriate workspace.