Quick answer: In a Ferma comparison of oral small molecule and peptide programs in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a commercial drug pipeline database returned 194 programs, all listed as active. About a third showed evidence of stopped, suspended, or terminated development, and Ferma found 86 programs the search never returned. Ferma conducted and scored the comparison, and it was not independently reviewed.
If a drug pipeline database keeps an old active status, the competitive set may include programs that no longer belong. This post shows what happened when Ferma checked one indication against public evidence.
How was the comparison set up?
The comparison asked one competitive question in IBD, the kind pharma CI teams assess: which oral small molecule and peptide programs are in development, from preclinical through Phase 3?
- Set 1: results from a commercial pipeline database used by pharmaceutical CI teams, accessed under subscription
- Set 2: Ferma’s results for the same scope
Both sets were assessed against public evidence in the same week. Ferma conducted and scored the comparison on 14 August 2026. The commercial database is not named.
How many “active” programs showed stopped development?
Every one of the 194 commercial results was listed as active. After reviewing the evidence behind each entry, Ferma classified 63 of them, roughly one in three, as showing stopped, suspended, or terminated development. A smaller group had a cited source that could not be verified.
That category needs care. A trial can stop while the wider program continues, so each of these entries still calls for a program-level judgment. The whitepaper shows how the entries break down and how the totals reconcile.
What did the database search miss?
The gap ran the other way too. Ferma returned 86 programs that were absent from the commercial search results, and reported a retrievable original source document for each one. Ferma classified some of them as Phase 3.
A missing late-stage program is the kind of gap that can leave a team underestimating future competition or preparing too late for a trial result.
The comparison was not one-sided. Some programs that Ferma classified as active appeared only in the commercial results, and their absence from Ferma’s set remains unresolved. They may reflect different inclusion rules, or programs Ferma missed.
How many of the 86 were in Phase 3, and how many programs appeared only in the commercial results? Both are answered in the whitepaper. Download the whitepaper
What does this comparison prove, and what doesn’t it?
This was one question, in one indication, at one point in time. The 86 programs were absent from the commercial search results; the comparison does not show that they are missing from the entire database, and it is not a general accuracy rate for any provider. Patient-level detail was not separately tested.
What does it mean for CI analysts?
Before advising the business, a team would need to inspect the additional candidates, revisit the disputed statuses, and resolve the inclusion differences. These checks take time and add to the cost of getting a usable competitive assessment. We look at [where that cost comes from] in the final post in this series.
What’s inside the whitepaper
- The full reconciliation of both sets, segment by segment
- The phase breakdown of the 86 programs found only by Ferma
- How many programs appeared only in the commercial results, and why they remain open
- The exact screening rules Ferma applied, and how the “discontinued” category was defined
- A side-by-side test your team can run on its own indication
Frequently asked questions