The busi­ness mod­el of End­points News — and why you should sub­scribe

Pisa, Italy – 2008
From the pub­lish­er

Our busi­ness mod­el is ex­pand­ing to­day. In short: you can keep read­ing us for free, but we’re adding new ben­e­fits with paid sub­scrip­tions, and not tak­ing any con­tent away. We re­main com­mit­ted to ac­ces­si­ble jour­nal­ism.  But we plan on grow­ing the group at End­points, and we’d like your sup­port for that. So we’re ask­ing read­ers — both com­pa­nies and in­di­vid­u­als — to pur­chase one of two new sub­scrip­tion prod­ucts.

Up­grade my sub­scrip­tion now

In­di­vid­u­als

In­sid­er $200/yr

Ben­e­fits No email ads, print to PDF, ex­clu­sive opin­ion con­tent, sup­port our growth and be amongst the ear­li­est adopters of our in­de­pen­dent jour­nal­ism mod­el.

Com­pa­nies (all sizes)

En­ter­prise $1,000/yr

Li­cense Un­lim­it­ed cut-and-paste and reprint rights; pri­vate news­feed for com­pa­ny re­broad­cast, print to PDF, and ex­clu­sive opin­ion con­tent. The best way a com­pa­ny can sup­port End­points News. One li­cense cov­ers every em­ploy­ee no mat­ter how large or small the firm.


For over a year now, co-founder John Car­roll and I have been build­ing a busi­ness news com­pa­ny on an open mod­el be­cause we be­lieve the news ought to be free, ac­ces­si­ble, and eas­i­ly dis­cov­er­able by the right au­di­ences. Our job is to cre­ate a news­feed which bio­phar­ma read­ers seek out and will­ing­ly re­turn to.

We think 60% of you will not, un­der any cir­cum­stance, pay for con­tent. And that’s no prob­lem. We wel­come you, and noth­ing much will change.

Free sub­scribers will con­tin­ue get­ting full-fi­deli­ty Ear­ly Edi­tion and Fea­ture Edi­tion dai­ly email newslet­ters, plus up to four spon­sored emails per month, and en­joy one-click reg­is­tra­tion ac­cess to spe­cial re­ports and deep dives. This is all sup­port­ed by email mar­ket­ing cam­paigns from spon­sors who part­ner with us di­rect­ly to show you rel­e­vant cam­paigns.

For com­pa­nies and in­di­vid­u­als who want to sup­port our work, or could use the new ben­e­fits we’re in­tro­duc­ing to­day, the In­sid­er and En­ter­prise plans are for you.

Do I/we need a sub­scrip­tion? 

(1) Do you cut-and-paste lib­er­al­ly, be­yond fair use, from our web­site and share con­tent with col­leagues or with clients?

(2) Do you for­ward our emails or ar­ti­cles to a com­pa­ny-wide dis­tri­b­u­tion?

If the an­swer is yes to ei­ther, you need an En­ter­prise Plan li­cense.

The plan is made for near­ly all busi­ness pur­pos­es and in­tents. If you work in PR, me­dia mon­i­tor­ing, or ad­ver­tis­ing, and we re­port on your clients, chances are you might want to legal­ly use our con­tent to present it in your own for­mat or medi­um. This plan is for you.

If we buy an En­ter­prise Plan, does that mean every­one in my com­pa­ny is cov­ered?

Yes. Every­one in your com­pa­ny is cov­ered if just one per­son is the hold­er of a cur­rent En­ter­prise sub­scrip­tion. If you work at Mer­ck or Lemon­ade Stand Biotech, the price is the same.

Does the En­ter­prise plan in­clude every­thing the In­sid­er has?

No. The In­sid­er plan in­cludes the ad-free ex­pe­ri­ence. En­ter­prise plans on­ly in­clude it for the ac­count hold­er, but that ben­e­fit does not ex­tend to the en­tire com­pa­ny.

Why are you do­ing sub­scrip­tions? Isn’t the spon­sored con­tent busi­ness de­cent?

Top-class brands like Catal­ent, PPD, Brack­et, in­Ven­tiv Health Con­sult­ing, and more, all got on the ground floor and part­nered with us on smart, high-im­pact cam­paigns for their brands in our first year. You will be see­ing a lot more of that in the years to come be­cause it’s a cru­cial piece of our fu­ture.

Ar­salan Arif

But the truth is, no­body can tell the fu­ture of the news busi­ness, so like any good en­ter­prise, we’re di­ver­si­fy­ing our rev­enue. And for us, there can be no bet­ter rev­enue than the kind we get di­rect­ly from our au­di­ence. Our goal is to be around for a while. Noth­ing is more im­por­tant to our fu­ture than this pro­gram.

We have a few non-ne­go­tiables. Sharp writ­ing, con­sis­ten­cy, an­swer­able on­ly to read­ers, re­li­ably de­liv­ered, pre­sent­ed clean­ly — with full fi­deli­ty in email and on the web. No tech­ni­cal lim­i­ta­tions placed on read­ers. These are our prin­ci­ples.

And all of those ideals cost re­al mon­ey. We’re aware of the mar­gin­al cost of cre­at­ing con­tent on­line to­day. It’s painful­ly and ab­solute­ly ze­ro. But we think good con­tent and ideas will win, but not with­out the di­rect sup­port of our read­ers.

We’re go­ing to keep work­ing for it every day. We hope you join us.

Up­grade my sub­scrip­tion now

UP­DAT­ED: Clay Sie­gall’s $614M wa­ger on tu­ca­tinib pays off with solid­ly pos­i­tive piv­otal da­ta and a date with the FDA

Back at the beginning of 2018, Clay Siegall snagged a cancer drug called tucatinib with a $614 million cash deal to buy Cascadian. It paid off today with a solid set of mid-stage data for HER2 positive breast cancer that will in turn serve as the pivotal win Siegall needs to seek an accelerated approval in the push for a new triplet therapy.

And if all the cards keep falling in its favor, they’ll move from 1 drug on the market to 3 in 2020, which is shaping up as a landmark year as Seattle Genetics prepares for its 23rd anniversary on July 15.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

J&J's block­buster Ste­lara wins US ap­proval for ul­cer­a­tive col­i­tis

J&J’s Stelara, which is set to be in the top ten list of blockbusters come 2025, is now cleared by the FDA for use in ulcerative colitis (UC), an inflammatory disease of the large intestine.

The biologic targets interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 cytokines, which are known to play a key role in inflammatory and immune responses. Stelara, which generated about $4.7 billion in the first nine months of 2019, is a key player in the crowded marketplace of drugs to treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn’s disease. AbbVie’s star therapy, Humira, continues to dominate, despite its looming patent cliff in the United States, while others including J&J’s $JNJ own anti-IL23 Tremfya, Lilly’s $LLY anti-IL-17 Taltz and AbbVie’s $ABBV recently approved anti-IL-23 antibody Skyrizi carve out a slice of market share.

Drug com­pa­nies reach $260M set­tle­ment just ahead of opi­oid tri­al; Oys­ter Point set terms for $85M IPO

→ Hours before the first federal opioid trial was set to begin, three drug distributors and an opioid manufacturer agreed to a $260 million agreement settlement. The deal — which will see McKesson, Cardinal Health and AmerisourceBergen pay $215 million to Summit and Cuyahoga counties, and Teva deal out $35 million in cash and addiction treatments — does not resolve the pending, nationwide litigation that may result in a settlement worth upwards of $40 billion. Negotiators in that case, brought by 2,300 tribes, counties and cities nationwide and led by several states’ attorneys general, worked through much of Friday without success. Josh Stein, the attorney general for North Carolina, said they were trying to put together a $48 billion deal.

GSK of­floads two vac­cines in $1.1B deal as it works to re­vive the pipeline

GlaxoSmithKline is leaving the deep dark woods and its viruses behind.

GSK has agreed to divest its vaccines for rabies, RabAvert, and tick-born encephalitis vaccine, Encepur, to Bavarian Nordic, part of the company’s broader efforts to narrow its pipeline and focus on oncology and immunology.

The deal is worth up to nearly $1.1 billion, with a $336 million upfront payment. GSK acquired the vaccines from Novartis as part of an exchange for their late-stage oncology programs in 2015 under former chief Sir Andrew Witty.

Pfiz­er gets some en­cour­ag­ing PhI­II news on a fran­chise sav­ior, but is a dos­ing ad­van­tage worth the $295M up­front?

Close to 3 years after Opko tried to defend itself as shares tumbled on the news that its long-acting growth hormone had failed to outperform a placebo, the Pfizer partner $PFE is back. And this time they’re pitching Phase III data that demonstrate their drug is non-inferior — or maybe a tad better — than their well-known but fading standard in the field.
The comparator drug here is Genotropin, which earned a marginal $142 million for Pfizer last year — down 9% from the year before. Approved 24 years ago, biosimilars are now in development that Pfizer would like to stay out in front of. The market leader here is Norditropin, a growth hormone from Novo Nordisk that uses the same basic ingredient as Genotropin, which the Danish company sells with a kid-friendly self-injectable pen. That would also present some big competition if the new therapy from Opko/Pfizer makes it to the market.
The new data, says researchers, underscore that a weekly injection of somatrogon performed as well or slightly better than Genotropin (somatropin) in young children with growth hormone deficiency. Investigators tracked height velocity at 10.12 cm/year, edging out the older drug’s 9.78 cm/year. That 0.33 difference may not prove compelling to payers, though, who have been known to overlook dosing advantages in favor of lower costs.
That message may have weighed on the stock reaction this morning, with a 30%-plus hike $OPK giving way to more marginal gains.
Back in late 2016, Opko had to defend itself against a devastating Phase III setback as their initial late-stage trial failed against a sugar pill. Opko later blamed that setback on outliers in the study, though it wasn’t able to expunge the failure.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

As­traZeneca's Farx­i­ga scores FDA nod to cut risk of hos­pi­tal­iza­tion for heart fail­ure in di­a­bet­ics

While the FDA recently spurned an application to allow AstraZeneca’s blockbuster drug Farxiga for type 1 diabetes that cannot be controlled by insulin, citing safety concerns — the US regulator has endorsed the use of the SGLT2 treatment to reduce the risk of hospitalisation for heart failure in patients with type-2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or multiple CV risk factors.

IM­brave150: Roche’s reg­u­la­to­ry crew plans a glob­al roll­out of Tecen­triq com­bo for liv­er can­cer as PhI­II scores a hit

Just weeks after Bristol-Myers Squibb defended its failed pivotal study pitting Opdivo against Nexavar in liver cancer, Roche says it’s beat the frontline challenge with a combination of their PD-L1 Tecentriq with Avastin. And now they’re rolling their regulatory teams in the US, Europe and China in search of a new approval — badly needed to boost a trailing franchise effort.
Given their breakthrough and Big Pharma status as well as the use of two approved drugs, FDA approval may well prove to be something of a formality. And the Chinese have been clear that they want new drugs for liver cancer, where lethal disease rates are particularly high.
Researchers at their big biotech sub, Genentech, say that the combo beat Bayer’s Nexavar on both progression-free survival as well as overall survival — the first advance in this field in more than a decade. We won’t get the breakdown in months of life gained, but it’s a big win for Roche, which has lagged far, far behind Keytruda and Opdivo, the dominant PD-1s that have captured the bulk of the checkpoint market so far.
Researchers recruited hepatocellular carcinoma — the most common form of liver cancer — patients for the IMbrave150 study who weren’t eligible for surgery ahead of any systemic treatment of the disease.
Roche has a fairly low bar to beat, with modest survival benefit for Nexavar, approved for this indication 12 years ago. But they also plan to offer a combo therapy that could have significantly less toxicity, offering patients a much easier treatment regimen.
Cowen’s Steven Scala recently sized up the importance of IMbrave150, noting:

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 62,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Sofinno­va-backed Abi­vax touts longer term mid-stage da­ta in ul­cer­a­tive col­i­tis

Two months after Abivax convinced Sofinnova to bankroll several mid-stage studies of its lead drug — ABX464 — with a €12 million stock purchase, the Paris-based biotech has rolled out more data on the anti-inflammatory molecule for all investors to see.

In a Phase IIa maintenance study involving 22 patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis who have been failed by previous treatments, 12 achieved clinical remission as assessed by endoscopy. But since only 19 completed the full one-year trial, 16 of whom had an endoscopy, investigators scored the remission rate at 75%. Although there’s no comparator arm, execs were pleased with improvements over an initial two-month, placebo-controlled induction phase by a number of measures ranging from remission to Mayo score and a fecal biomarker.

Alex­ion clinch­es aHUS ap­proval for Ul­tomiris as the clock ticks on Soliris con­ver­sion

Alexion has racked up a second approval for Ultomiris, the successor therapy to Soliris, as its mainstay blockbuster therapy faces a patent review process that could drastically shorten its patent exclusivity.

The FDA OK for atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) on Friday was widely expected after Alexion posted a full slate of positive Phase III data in January. But regulators also flagged concerns about serious meningococcal infections, slapping a black box warning on the label and mandating a REMS.