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

John Hood [file photo]

UP­DATE: Cel­gene and the sci­en­tist who cham­pi­oned fe­dra­tinib's rise from Sanofi's R&D grave­yard win FDA OK

Six years after Sanofi gave it up for dead, the FDA has approved the myelofibrosis drug fedratinib, now owned by Celgene.

The drug will be sold as Inrebic, and will soon land in the portfolio at Bristol-Myers Squibb, which is finalizing a deal to acquire Celgene.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ab­b­Vie gets its FDA OK for JAK in­hibitor upadac­i­tinib, but don’t look for this one to hit ex­ecs’ lofty ex­pec­ta­tions

Another big drug approval came through on Friday afternoon as the FDA OK’d AbbVie’s upadacitinib — an oral JAK1 inhibitor that is hitting the rheumatoid arthritis market with a black box warning of serious malignancies, infections and thrombosis reflecting fears associated with the class.

It will be sold as Rinvoq — at a wholesale price of $59,000 a year — and will likely soon face competition from a drug that AbbVie once controlled, and spurned. Reuters reports that a 4-week supply of Humira, by comparison, is $5,174, adding up to about $67,000 a year.

UP­DAT­ED: AveX­is sci­en­tif­ic founder was axed — and No­var­tis names a new CSO in wake of an ethics scan­dal

Now at the center of a storm of controversy over its decision to keep its knowledge of manipulated data hidden from regulators during an FDA review, Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan has found a longtime veteran in the ranks to head the scientific work underway at AveXis, where the incident occurred. And the scientific founder has hit the exit.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

The top 10 fran­chise drugs in bio­phar­ma his­to­ry will earn a to­tal of $1.4T (tril­lion) by 2024 — what does that tell us?

Just in case you were looking for more evidence of just how important Amgen’s patent win on Enbrel is for the company and its investors, EvaluatePharma has come up with a forward-looking consensus estimate on what the list of top 10 drugs will look like in 2024.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: Sci­en­tist-CEO ac­cused of im­prop­er­ly us­ing con­fi­den­tial in­fo from uni­corn Alec­tor

The executive team at Alector $ALEC has a bone to pick with scientific co-founder Asa Abeliovich. Their latest quarterly rundown has this brief note buried inside:

On June 18, 2019, we initiated a confidential arbitration proceeding against Dr. Asa Abeliovich, our former consulting co-founder, related to alleged breaches of his consulting agreement and the improper use of our confidential information that he learned during the course of rendering services to us as our consulting Chief Scientific Officer/Chief Innovation Officer. We are in the early stage of this arbitration proceeding and are unable to assess or provide any assurances regarding its possible outcome.

There’s no explicit word in the filing on what kind of confidential info was involved, but the proceeding got started 2 days ahead of Abeliovich’s IPO.

Abeliovich, formerly a tenured associate professor at Columbia, is a top scientist in the field of neurodegeneration, which is where Alector is targeted. More recently, he’s also helped start up Prevail Therapeutics as the CEO, which raised $125 million in an IPO. And there he’s planning on working on new gene therapies that target genetically defined subpopulations of Parkinson’s disease. Followup programs target Gaucher disease, frontotemporal dementia and synucleinopathies.

But this time Abeliovich is the CEO rather than a founding scientist. And some of their pipeline overlaps with Alector’s.

Abeliovich and Prevail, though, aren’t taking this one lying down.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Chi­na has be­come a CEO-lev­el pri­or­i­ty for multi­na­tion­al phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies: the trend and the im­pli­ca­tions

After a “hot” period of rapid growth between 2009 and 2012, and a relatively “cooler” period of slower growth from 2013 to 2015, China has once again become a top-of-mind priority for the CEOs of most large, multinational pharmaceutical companies.

At the International Pharma Forum, hosted in March in Beijing by the R&D Based Pharmaceutical Association Committee (RDPAC) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), no fewer than seven CEOs of major multinational pharmaceutical firms participated, including GSK, Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB. A few days earlier, the CEOs of several other large multinationals attended the China Development Forum, an annual business forum hosted by the research arm of China’s State Council. It’s hard to imagine any other country, except the US, having such drawing power at CEO level.

As dis­as­ter struck, Ab­b­Vie’s Rick Gon­za­lez swooped in on Al­ler­gan with an of­fer Brent Saun­ders couldn’t say no to

Early March was a no good, awful, terrible time for Allergan CEO Brent Saunders. His big lead drug had imploded in a Phase III disaster and activists were after his hide — or at least his chairman’s title — as the stock price continued a steady droop that had eviscerated share value for investors.

But it was a perfect time for AbbVie CEO Rick Gonzalez to pick up the phone and ask Saunders if he’d like to consider a “strategic” deal.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

CEO Pascal Soriot via Getty Images

As­traZeneca's jug­ger­naut PARP play­er Lyn­parza scoops up an­oth­er dom­i­nant win in PhI­II as the FDA adds a 'break­through' for Calquence

AstraZeneca’s oncology R&D group under José Baselga keeps churning out hits.

Wednesday morning the pharma giant and their partners at Merck parted the curtains on a successful readout for their Phase III PAOLA-1 study, demonstrating statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival for women with ovarian cancer in a first-line maintenance setting who added their PARP Lynparza to Avastin. This is their second late-stage success in ovarian cancer, which will help stave off rivals like GSK.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

ICER blasts FDA, PTC and Sarep­ta for high prices on DMD drugs Em­flaza, Ex­ondys 51

ICER has some strong words for PTC, Sarepta and the FDA as the US drug price watchdog concludes that as currently priced, their respective new treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy are decidedly not cost-effective.

The final report — which cements the conclusions of a draft issued in May — incorporates the opinion of a panel of 17 experts ICER convened in a public meeting last month. It also based its analysis of Emflaza (deflazacort) and Exondys 51 (eteplirsen) on updated annual costs of $81,400 and over $1 million, respectively, after citing “incorrect” lower numbers in the initial calculations.