An advisory board is a large, substantial undertaking. Defining the objective of the meeting. Ensuring available timing for all relevant colleagues. Deciding on the right city at the right time of year. Picking a venue. Managing all of the logistics. Planning all of the questions and discussions.
And most importantly — deciding who you want as your advisors.
Whether this is a clinical development or medical affairs advisory board, there is a temptation to pick the top KOLs in your therapeutic area. Those who are the most highly published, those at the top of large, storied institutions, those who are principal investigators of the biggest Phase 3 trials. Having these types of advisors absolutely makes sense.
But digging a little bit deeper, it is important to ask ourselves: Do I need a table full of the top therapeutic area experts? Or is there something else I should be looking at to make sure I get the most valuable guidance and insights when we meet as a board?
After years of planning and facilitating advisory board meetings across clinical development and medical affairs, advisor selection really comes down to one question:
What are the questions I need answered?
Start with the questions, not the KOL list
If there is one thing that is missed most often — even with highly experienced and driven teams — it is thoroughly defining the objective(s) of the meeting. This is something I stress with all new teams that I work with.
Are you planning a Phase 2 trial and need insights on trial design? On recruitment challenges? Are you evaluating the use of biomarkers?
Do you need insights on the real unmet needs of practicing physicians in the community setting? What medical “story” makes the most sense to them?
Are you in a new therapeutic area and evaluating a series of pilot studies on clinical candidates before planning a Phase 2?
All of these questions — and the myriad of other possibilities — may seem like questions the top “experts” would be best positioned to answer. But the principal investigator, the community physician, the investigator from Hungary or Australia — they may actually be closer to the questions you need answered.
And sometimes it may be an emerging expert who isn't yet on every advisory board, but who brings a fresh perspective and deep experience with exactly the question you're trying to answer.
The KOL network isn’t the whole market
Christine Ong recently shared a point on LinkedIn that immediately resonated with me:
“The KOL network is not the market.”
That applies to advisory boards as well.
Top KOLs are very influential. And for good reason. They are highly experienced — both in practice and clinical trials. They know the published data and are aware of the cutting-edge, new developments in a field.
But depending on what our needs are for this meeting — the objectives — it may be a better strategy to have one or two top KOLs, as well as the community physician, the European investigator, or the physician who also runs support groups for his or her disease area.
The goal isn't to exclude the most prominent experts. It's to make sure we're not overlooking other perspectives that may be just as important to the questions we're trying to answer.
Don’t overlook the dynamics of the room
Not only is it important to have top experts in the room — and that can mean clinical expertise, recruitment expertise, health system expertise and more — but it is also vitally important that these advisors will communicate well together and contribute to the goals of the session.
Having an expert advisor who is argumentative or domineering can undermine the goals of the meeting, no matter how qualified that person may be.
If you know the advisors you are considering, think about how well they’ll interact as a group. You don't want one advisor dominating the discussion to the point that other perspectives aren't heard.
At the same time, some quieter advisors can bring incredibly valuable perspectives. Good facilitation should create opportunities to draw those advisors into the conversation rather than allowing the loudest voices in the room to determine where the discussion goes.
The goal isn't necessarily agreement. Sometimes disagreement is where the most useful insights emerge.
Consider who is missing
When you have your initial list of target advisors, think about the subjects you’ll be discussing — and then think about who is missing.
If you are investigating a new disease area, are the top clinical experts in that area there?
If you are looking at access and coverage, do you have perspectives from national insurers as well as regional ones?
Are we hearing from an investigator who has experience recruiting for a particularly challenging trial — and can help us understand why recruitment was so difficult?
Is there a community physician whose experience with patients looks very different from that of the academic experts?
And are there perspectives that challenge what the team already believes?
The right advisors depend on the objective
It all comes down to the reason for the meeting in the first place:
What questions do we want answered, and who are the right people to help us answer them?
Are we considering all viewpoints — not just the ones we know best or like best?
Advisory boards are time-consuming and expensive undertakings. The goal shouldn't be to assemble the most impressive list of names. It should be to bring together the right group of people to challenge assumptions, share different perspectives and help the team make better-informed decisions.
Sometimes those will be the biggest names in the field.
And sometimes the person who provides the most valuable insight will be someone you might not have initially thought to invite.