Which Manufacturer Fields the
Best MSL Team?

“Especially with myeloma therapies, I interact with their MSL frequently on bispecific and CAR T therapy. They answer questions in a timely fashion.”

“The representative brought relevant clinical information on side effect management. She took my concerns seriously and would follow up with additional recommendations or people I should talk with.”

“I feel they’re not as fast sometimes as other companies.”

“Gilead’s MSL team helped close gaps in knowledge and are highly responsive. They provide exceptional real-time support for complex patient management.”

“They provide great service to my staff, introduce new clinical data and present opportunities for clinical involvement.”

“The portfolio didn’t align well with my core area — the team didn’t demonstrate sophisticated command of the emerging therapeutic landscape.”

“He went in depth about the data and was well versed about logistics around access and coverage.”

“They do not follow up with the emails. Makes it hard to remember and follow up on their product updates.”

“The inconsistent cadence of communications and unclear reason for visit requests.”

“Dependability and follow up on the requested information.”

“They were thoughtful, worked around my schedule, and very willing to engage in appropriate connectivity with my research and scientific interests.”

“They seem to be a little less prepared and it’s unclear who is taking charge — no clear point person.”

“They have less frequent interactions with me and not as many research opportunities in my area of interest. Sometimes they have not followed up when I have asked questions.”

“They were very good at setting up meetings quarterly with me to go over new data or talk about research or other things.”

“They were very good at setting up quarterly meetings — but this has fallen through in recent months even after I’ve reached out.”

“Given a new indication recently for one of their key drugs in my specialty, I expected better follow-through and proactive outreach.”

“Clinical trial involvement, patient access support programs.”

“Less data-driven storytelling — not much trial dissection. Less focus on pathway biology and resistance mechanisms.”

“Representatives seemed disinterested and wanted to leave quickly.”

“They have reached out to interact when needed.”

“I feel like I don’t get any invitations to the advisory boards — not always speaking to the same person when I engage with them.”

“Provided slightly better information about potential upcoming clinical trial opportunities.”

“They were not able to satisfactorily answer my questions.”

“I’d expect them to organize more educational events — come to conferences, have a visible presence, and host discussions about their cutting-edge research with oncologists in the field.”

“The way she presents the information — especially clinical data, indications for the medication, and follow-up on previous conversations.”

“An interaction I had felt rushed — limited interactions overall with their team.”

“It felt like they were there with their script and not going to deviate from it — even if I had an unrelated clinical question.”

“Very approachable, easy to speak to, down to earth, warm and friendly.”

“What could be improved is consistency and continuity, plus more rapid follow-up.”

“They’re very good at talking about efficacy and response rates, but less good about discussing serious safety considerations like myelodysplasia.”

“They were the most prepared and had the most robust information to present.”

“They were able to provide details on administration, clinical follow-up, and concerns regarding toxicities.”

“More long-term data — more relevant to the various indications we’re discussing.”

“Bullet-pointed trial inclusion/exclusion and methods, followed by a review of clinical data and how it builds on prior studies.”

“Strong support for research, responsiveness, and scientific neutrality.”

“Slightly less command of very specific scientific questions — the gap was narrow but noticeable at a granular level.”

“They need to better address how to mitigate toxicities and side effects — guidance on safe and effective use in a broader patient population has been lacking.”

“Overall quick to answer emails, provided good data and help when needed.”

“Other teams were a little better in terms of answering questions in a timely manner.”

“I felt like the topics discussed were not as clinically relevant or interesting as some of the other manufacturers.”

“They are time-efficient in general, follow up with me, and are able to answer questions that are posed to them.”

“The MSL didn’t spend enough time in detailed review.”

“Each time that I see them, it’s a new experience. So you’re starting from ground level each time.”

“They provide great clinical opportunities and have a great product pipeline.”

“Not responsive to participating in Investigator Initiated Studies.”

“I did not get very personalized attention. I often felt like I got generic handouts with very little attention to what my clinic’s patients actually need.”