A brief introduction?
Charles Taieb, trained as a physician, with experience in public health and quality of life. My work on a daily basis is to set up large international studies, either for patient associations, for scientific societies, or for healthcare industry players, in order to capture the burden of disease, especially skin diseases.
These studies can, and this is really the reason why I reached out to you, involve 30,000 to 50,000 individuals who answer the questionnaire. They may come from between 5 and 35 countries and have different skin conditions. They also obviously include different genders, both men and women, as well as different phototypes and, for me, fair skin types. So we end up with a whole sample that is representative of individuals worldwide.
Because when you set up a study with 35,000 or 40,000 people who respond to a questionnaire, who come from five different continents, obviously you have all kinds of people, all kinds of skin, all kinds of skin color.
Could you tell us a bit more about your projects? How did they come about?
For example, if I take a project on atopic dermatitis called Scar of Life. The idea is to say: eczema is a disease that appears relatively early, from childhood. Even some infants already have atopic dermatitis. 10% of those who have atopic dermatitis during childhood will keep it into adulthood. Which means that 90% of those who have atopic dermatitis during childhood will not have it as adults.
On top of that, there are individuals whose atopic dermatitis appears in adulthood. What you want to see is whether having atopic dermatitis during childhood affected adult life. That’s why we called it Scar of Life: does this atopic dermatitis remain a life scar for these patients?
How did you discover Data Champ’, and what convinced you to work with us?
In reality, I don’t think I discovered Data Champ’, I rather discovered Charles Bordet. Because about ten or twelve years ago, when I started and created the company Emma, I simply needed to carry out statistical analyses. At the time, he was doing that. I met him by chance on Malt, because for me it was easier. And so I first met Charles. He carried out my first analyses, about ten years ago, and by chance we lost touch. He evolved, moved away from statistics, and went on to do something else.
And then I ran into him again, by chance. At the time, I was also working with Bioderma in Lyon. One day I told him: “Listen, I’m in Lyon, on a given day I’m going to meet Bioderma. Do you want to meet up?” He said yes, we did the first analyses, and then we didn’t speak again for almost seven or eight years. Then about two and a half, three years ago, I called him because I needed to do some analyses. He explained that he wasn’t doing it anymore and referred me to someone else.
But we still exchanged by phone and video call. I explained what I was looking for, and he told me: “I think we can do it.” And that really was pure chance. So that chance led to a first project.
The first project was for Pierre Fabre, for the Hall study. It was very well received, because it is indeed very attractive. As I mentioned earlier, we conduct studies with 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 people across 30 or 35 countries. It’s true that the platform you offer (I don’t really know what to call it, let’s call it “the platform”) allows, for example, Italian physicians to look at the prevalence of a disease in Italy, specifically among women and within the age range of 20 to 30, for example.
So it really brings the results to life. Because I think that in the results we have, there must be three or four million data points, but obviously three or four million data points don’t interest everyone. People are only interested in three or four data points, and we give them the opportunity to focus on them, to highlight those three or four data points, and to access them immediately.
The process has clearly improved, because afterwards we were able to print result sheets. We can print the full set of results for a country. We did it for Pierre Fabre, it appealed to La Roche-Posay, and the proof: La Roche-Posay bought three of them. And then I sold it to a third laboratory, an American laboratory based in Geneva, Switzerland, which will use the same platform for another study with 5,000 patients, because it was really well received.
You should know that this platform, for example, Pierre Fabre uses it on booths at conferences. And when physicians walk through conferences to collect documentation, to gather information, well, they have an opportunity. There is a touchscreen display that allows them to “play” with it, in quotation marks.
That is the key point: it makes it possible to make complex results engaging. There is a gallery at Pierre Fabre called La Galerie. I no longer remember the exact name, but personally I call it the Hall of Mirrors, because it is located at Pierre Fabre’s historic headquarters, where all the key milestones of the group are presented. The screen is there, and visitors to the group can, I always use quotes, “play” with this platform and ask any question that interests them, within the scope of the study, of course.
How did the collaboration go from your point of view? Did it meet your initial expectations?
For me, the essential thing is that it works and that the client is happy. Because I think that when a client has bought one, then bought two, then bought three, that means something. At the moment, I have a new project with Pierre Fabre that is likely to be launched. They immediately asked me to include the platform in the quote, because they really like it.
And what is interesting is that industrial players such as Pierre Fabre were not able to do this. They tried to develop something internally, they couldn’t. So if the option is to use an external provider, they might as well stay with me. They also couldn’t develop something as aesthetically pleasing, because it also has to be an aesthetic tool. It cannot just be statistics.
We had done a first attempt with another company, and it was very rudimentary, very dull. It needs to use colors that reflect the study’s codes, the type of study, and the study’s colors. So obviously, I can’t be picky: if we’ve done one, then three, then four, and maybe a fifth, it’s because clearly it worked. And when you know that this platform will be used in institutional settings, within groups, at conferences, on booths, and shared with a wide audience, it also has to match the industrial client’s aesthetic standards and remain visually appealing.
People sometimes say: you need substance, and you need form. You need just as much form as substance.
What do you think of Data Champ’s working approach?
I’m from the old school, so I like polite, respectful people. Honestly, working with Charles ten years ago appealed to me right away, because he’s a good person. I mean, he doesn’t do anything underhanded, he’s clear, transparent, straightforward, and honest. So I really liked that.
One day he told me: “I’m going to have someone help me,” and well, that was you. I mean, birds of a feather flock together. No problem at all. He’s really a pleasant guy, so I have no issue.
The only criticism I could make is that you shut everything down on Friday evening and reopen on Monday. When you’re in a large company, I think that makes sense. When you’re in a small company, I think you need more flexibility, but I don’t really know. Everyone does as they see fit.
I remain convinced that both you and Charles, if there were really a major problem and I called on a Saturday at noon, you would answer. For example, a real issue for me would be if the platform stopped working because of a bug while my client was in the middle of a major conference, I’d be in trouble. In that case, I need a solution. Fortunately, I haven’t faced that yet, because every time there was a bug, we had 24 or 48 hours to fix the problem.
But you can imagine being at a major American conference and having to fix it in five or ten minutes, at least as quickly as possible. I remain convinced that even if it’s Sunday and I call, someone will answer and the job will get done.
Is there anything you think we could improve to make our service even more relevant?
The weekend issue is anecdotal, because logically there shouldn’t be any problem. Personally, I think it’s very good as it is. You should keep going.
Would you like to add anything?
You see, I can sum it up by saying that birds of a feather flock together. Charles is a wonderful person, and so are you. For me, it’s not about working with you or with him — it’s exactly the same, and I have complete trust. And in any case, the connection was established very quickly, and there’s no issue at all.
Comments