Tag: pharmaceuticals

  • STAT+: Sanofi avoids fine as EU accepts offer to end antitrust probe over disparaging rival vaccine

    STAT+: Sanofi avoids fine as EU accepts offer to end antitrust probe over disparaging rival vaccine

    By Ed Silverman

    Oct. 14, 2026

    Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer

    Ed’s stories explore prescription drug pricing, affordability and access, as well issues surrounding patents, litigation, and legislation. He is also the author of the morning Pharmalittle newsletter and the afternoon Pharmalot newsletter.

    European Union antitrust regulators accepted concessions from Sanofi to settle an investigation into an allegedly “misleading” campaign that disparaged the only rival flu vaccine recommended for vulnerable patients at risk for developing the illness. In doing so, the company avoided being fined.

    The European Commission had suggested that Sanofi portrayed the Fluad vaccine marketed by CSL Seqirus as inferior to its own Efluelda vaccine in a communication campaign that primarily targeted health care professionals in Germany and France. Sanofi holds a dominant position in both countries, according to the EC.

    To resolve the probe, Sanofi committed to a corrective communication campaign rectifying its “possible disparaging behavior” and to refrain from such behavior in the future, according to Teresa Riberta, the European Commission executive vice president for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition. The agreement is legally binding.

    STAT+ Exclusive Story

    Already have an account? Log in

    STAT+

    STAT+

    This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers

    Unlock this article — plus in-depth analysis, newsletters, premium events, and news alerts.

    Already have an account? Log in

    View All Plans

    To read the rest of this story subscribe to STAT+.

    Subscribe

  • STAT+: Many patient, consumer reps on FDA advisory panels have ties to groups funded by pharma, analysis finds

    By Ed Silverman

    Oct. 13, 2026

    Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer

    Ed’s stories explore prescription drug pricing, affordability and access, as well issues surrounding patents, litigation, and legislation. He is also the author of the morning Pharmalittle newsletter and the afternoon Pharmalot newsletter.

    Nearly 40% of Food and Drug Administration advisory committee meetings held over a recent 20-year period included either a patient or consumer representative with active ties to an advocacy group funded by pharmaceutical companies, according to a new analysis. And for several committees, the number of such reps exceeded 50%.

    In addition, more than one in 10 advisory committee meetings included a rep who was affiliated with an organization that received funding from the drugmaker whose medicine was being reviewed by the committees. Yet most of these organizational ties were not disclosed at the meetings, raising questions about voting behavior.

    The analysis, which was published in Health Affairs Scholar, noted the FDA has well-established conflict-of-interest policies for its scientific advisory committee members, but policies concerning patient and consumer reps are not as well developed, especially concerning industry funding of advocacy groups whose members appear on committees.

    STAT+ Exclusive Story

    Already have an account? Log in

    STAT+

    STAT+

    This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers

    Unlock this article — plus in-depth analysis, newsletters, premium events, and news alerts.

    Already have an account? Log in

    View All Plans

    To read the rest of this story subscribe to STAT+.

    Subscribe

  • STAT+: Many patient, consumer reps on FDA advisory panels have ties to groups funded by pharma, analysis finds

    STAT+: Many patient, consumer reps on FDA advisory panels have ties to groups funded by pharma, analysis finds

    By Ed Silverman

    Oct. 13, 2026

    Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer

    Ed’s stories explore prescription drug pricing, affordability and access, as well issues surrounding patents, litigation, and legislation. He is also the author of the morning Pharmalittle newsletter and the afternoon Pharmalot newsletter.

    Nearly 40% of Food and Drug Administration advisory committee meetings held over a recent 20-year period included either a patient or consumer representative with active ties to an advocacy group funded by pharmaceutical companies, according to a new analysis. And for several committees, the number of such reps exceeded 50%.

    In addition, more than one in 10 advisory committee meetings included a rep who was affiliated with an organization that received funding from the drugmaker whose medicine was being reviewed by the committees. Yet most of these organizational ties were not disclosed at the meetings, raising questions about voting behavior.

    The analysis, which was published in Health Affairs Scholar, noted the FDA has well-established conflict-of-interest policies for its scientific advisory committee members, but policies concerning patient and consumer reps are not as well developed, especially concerning industry funding of advocacy groups whose members appear on committees.

    STAT+ Exclusive Story

    Already have an account? Log in

    STAT+

    STAT+

    This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers

    Unlock this article — plus in-depth analysis, newsletters, premium events, and news alerts.

    Already have an account? Log in

    View All Plans

    To read the rest of this story subscribe to STAT+.

    Subscribe

  • STAT+: FTC demands Martin Shkreli divest his pharma stocks

    STAT+: FTC demands Martin Shkreli divest his pharma stocks

    Federal agency and seven states accuse ‘pharma bro’ of ‘flagrantly’ violating a court order

    Martin ShkreliDrew Angerer/Getty Images

    By Jason Mast

    Oct. 13, 2026

    General Assignment Reporter

    Jason is a general assignment reporter, with particular focus on genetic medicine and rare disease. Confidential tips can be sent on Signal at JasonMast.77.

    Martin Shkreli is back. The Federal Trade Commission isn’t happy. 

    The FTC and seven states on Tuesday asked a federal court to hold Shkreli in contempt for “flagrantly and repeatedly” violating a court order banning him from working in the pharmaceutical industry. 

    Shkreli, who became known nationwide as “pharma bro” in the 2010s for imperiously defending his decision to raise the price of an anti-parasitic drug called daraprim by 5,000%, was sentenced to seven years in prison for defrauding investors in 2018. Before he was released in 2022, a court banned him from ever working in the drug industry again, saying he illegally tried to prevent generic competition to daraprim.

    STAT+ Exclusive Story

    Already have an account? Log in

    STAT+

    STAT+

    This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers

    Unlock this article — plus daily coverage and analysis of the pharma industry — by subscribing to STAT+.

    Already have an account? Log in

    View All Plans

    To read the rest of this story subscribe to STAT+.

    Subscribe

    1. General Assignment Reporter

      Jason is a general assignment reporter, with particular focus on genetic medicine and rare disease. Confidential tips can be sent on Signal at JasonMast.77.

  • What Corporate Venture Funds Get Wrong about Strategic Value

    What Corporate Venture Funds Get Wrong about Strategic Value

    A venture fund’s objective is to invest capital into early-stage companies to fuel growth, increasing the probability that they are acquired or reach public markets. That’s how an “exit” is achieved, with the invested capital returned at a risk-adjusted profit. Corporate venture capital (CVC) differs from orthodox venture capital because, alongside financial returns, a CVC’s goal is often to create strategic value for a core business.

    Delivering this strategic value is much easier said than done, and therefore not well addressed by most CVC funds. 

    Outlined below are four distinct practices that optimize strategic and financial value. 

    Define strategic value alongside financial return

    Strategic value comes in many forms. Pharma corporate venture should develop investments that might generate a valuable new target, drug, or vaccine candidate, improve the probability of pipeline success, reduce the cost of R&D, accelerate clinical trials — and more through the entire value chain. It is not necessary to acquire such businesses outright, but it is necessary to cultivate them into standardized, scaled solutions for scientists, regulators, clinicians, patients, and payors.

    Assessing the value of an asset — financial and/or strategic — is as much art as science. Financial value can be estimated using discounted cash flow analysis, which relies on pro forma projections and assumptions about future market pricing and multiples, or through comparable-company analysis. Quantifying strategic value is much more difficult. One derivative indicator of strategic value is whether the core CVC business engages with the portfolio company, through piloting, partnering, licensing, and/or purchasing products or services. A CVC that can’t generate this type of engagement is just delivering capital without a strategic return. 

    Lead internal collaborations that power sourcing and diligence

    Placing relevant strategic investments requires deep familiarity with the parent company’s objectives and priorities. This means dedicated internal workstreams with business leaders and subject matter experts who help refine and prioritize use cases and understand unmet needs. In-house CVC resources also help with pipeline building and technical, scientific, and clinical due diligence. Proper engagement is time-consuming and requires operational, process, and communication excellence — skills anathema to the normal concerns of most venture investors.

    Many benefits accrue from generating that upfront buy-in. Deep collaboration raises the CVC’s probability of succeeding in highly scientific and technical markets. It also instills early business awareness and engagement, so portfolio companies develop faster pilots and larger partnerships, executable in a shorter timeframe.

    Drive leverage through syndication

    Most CVC investors are equipped to lead negotiations and price rounds, but there’s a strong case for prioritizing syndicate creation. 

    Syndication provides leverage through agile, coordinated activity on negotiating terms, dividing or delegating board activities, and considering future mergers and acquisitions. It also extends financial leverage, allowing a fund to cover more of the market and back a broader range of strategic interest areas. Joining syndicated deals priced by expert financial investors tends to produce a fair market price. A CVC can always walk away when pricing runs ahead of what its internal modeling supports. 

    Even with reduced board involvement, a fund can stay engaged through shareholder and information rights — quarterly financials, board materials, regular check-ins — whether it holds a board or observer seat or is simply an shareholder. 

    Occasionally, a CVC will need to play a more significant company-building role, In such cases it can place a convertible note or lead a round outright — but always with an eye toward delegating responsibility over time. The correct level of involvement is a case-by-case decision, considering the strategic relevance of the platform, the stage of the company, and the experience of its board and management team.

    Deliver the payoff 

    None of this works as one single move, but as a pattern: sourcing shaped by internal collaboration, pricing and development sharpened by syndication, and continued engagement all the way to exit. Funds that operate this way tend to see their strategic and financial returns reinforce each other over time rather than trade off against one another.

    The key lies in recruiting and training leaders who roll up their sleeves and work seamlessly with internal partners. When portfolio investments help a business develop better therapies or reach patients faster, they deliver strategic value — and ultimately value to patients and providers.

    Photo: Hong Li, Getty Images

    David M. Rubin

    David M. Rubin, Ph.D., is a Managing Director in Merck GHIF, where he leads the drug discovery and precision medicine practice. Dr. Rubin ran and helped build life sciences companies in the USA, UK, Denmark, Hungary, and India. He was awarded National Institutes of Health and American Cancer Society Fellowships to support his research at Harvard Medical School on ubiquitin-dependent protein degradation. He received a B.A. in biology from SUNY Binghamton and a Ph.D. from Temple University. Junk Birds, his collection of previously published short stories, was published in 2025.

    This post appears through the MedCity Influencers program. Anyone can publish their perspective on business and innovation in healthcare on MedCity News through MedCity Influencers. Click here to find out how.

  • STAT+: Pharma’s free lunches for doctors boost inappropriate prescribing, analysis finds

    STAT+: Pharma’s free lunches for doctors boost inappropriate prescribing, analysis finds

    By Ed Silverman

    Oct. 9, 2026

    Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer

    Ed’s stories explore prescription drug pricing, affordability and access, as well issues surrounding patents, litigation, and legislation. He is also the author of the morning Pharmalittle newsletter and the afternoon Pharmalot newsletter.

    The gifts and payments that doctors receive from drugmakers increased inappropriate prescribing and the number of prescriptions written, likely leading to rising health care costs, according to a Cochrane review of dozens of previous studies that have explored the influence the pharmaceutical industry has on medical practice.

    In addition, pharmaceutical advertising or education aimed at doctors may also increase inappropriate prescribing, probably increases the number of prescriptions written, and may increase the costs of prescriptions. But conflict-of-interest policies that restrict or manage interactions between companies and doctors probably improved prescribing practices, the analysis found.

    However, there was not enough evidence to draw clear conclusions on whether free drug samples and other promotions affect decisions to place specific drugs on hospital formularies. These are the list of medicines approved for use and routinely stocked in a hospital or health system.

    STAT+ Exclusive Story

    Already have an account? Log in

    STAT+

    STAT+

    This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers

    Unlock this article — plus in-depth analysis, newsletters, premium events, and news alerts.

    Already have an account? Log in

    View All Plans

    To read the rest of this story subscribe to STAT+.

    Subscribe

  • STAT+: Up and down the ladder: The latest comings and goings

    STAT+: Up and down the ladder: The latest comings and goings

    By Ed Silverman

    Oct. 9, 2026

    Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer

    Ed’s stories explore prescription drug pricing, affordability and access, as well issues surrounding patents, litigation, and legislation. He is also the author of the morning Pharmalittle newsletter and the afternoon Pharmalot newsletter.

    Hired someone new and exciting? Promoted a rising star? Finally solved that hard-to-fill spot? Share the news with us, and we’ll share it with others. That’s right. Send us your changes, and we’ll find a home for them. Don’t be shy. Everyone wants to know who is coming and going.

    And here is our regular feature in which we highlight a different person each week. This time around, we note that Q32 Bio hired José Trevejo as chief medical officer. Previously, he worked at Enveda Therapeutics, where he was chief medical officer and head of clinical pipeline strategy.

    But all work and no play can make for a dull chief medical officer.

    STAT+ Exclusive Story

    Already have an account? Log in

    STAT+

    STAT+

    This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers

    Unlock this article — plus in-depth analysis, newsletters, premium events, and news alerts.

    Already have an account? Log in

    View All Plans

    To read the rest of this story subscribe to STAT+.

    Subscribe

  • What Life Sciences Commercial Teams Can Learn from Digital Health

    What Life Sciences Commercial Teams Can Learn from Digital Health

    A cursory glance across job descriptions at most major pharmaceutical companies will, if one is being unkind, look essentially identical to the 2010s: the same divisional divide of analytics, field, launch, CRM, and content, to name just a few, with essential requirements listing a relevant degree and a set number of years in the subdivision. Meanwhile, AI threatens to upend the commercial ecosystem as we know it, if we let it. There’s no shortage of investment in commercial AI: budgets exist, and pilots launch.  What’s missing is a redefinition of the realm of commercial possibility. R&D teams talk about AI in terms of what’s possible, where Commercial teams mostly talk about it in terms of what’s faster: faster call planning, faster reporting, faster content approval. In the pharmaceutical industry, we’re not pondering what the Commercial function could become, only what it could do quicker. I believe that the pharmaceutical industry could learn several vital lessons from the digital health teams they are so frequently adjacent to, or in partnerships with.

    Today

    As it stands, commercial teams still remain largely siloed, despite a decades-long effort to the contrary: the SWAT teams who swoop in for launch, the marketing teams who focus on a “360-degree view of the customer” and pore over agency data on tactic performance, the sales teams who battle daily for two to five minutes with target HCPs, the digital teams optimizing Veeva or Salesforce and wrangling unwieldy data, and the market access teams negotiating, lobbying, and analyzing. Each function is a separate thread in the complex ball of yarn that is a Commercial team in 2026.  Each trying to grapple with the pace of change driven by AI for specific, single threaded needs. For example, a rep getting handed a new “AI-driven next best action” tool but it’s bolted onto the same static quarterly system that existed before, and doesn’t address any fundamental underlying model improvements.

    Opportunities for Pharma

    The real question: if we designed a pharma commercial function from scratch today, would it look anything like this? My hypothesis is no, and that it would look much closer to the world of digital health.

    Digital health and Pharma remain distant cousins in the family tree of life sciences and health. Where digital health can focus on specific interventions and inventions, Pharma, Big Pharma at least, has the unenviable task of spreading its approach across indications, therapeutic areas, and ultimately entire patient and HCP populations. The result is that digital health companies have grown up leaner, with commercial functions built as a specific, consolidated, and usually much smaller function than in pharma. 

    What pharma commercial could borrow from digital health isn’t complicated or novel, but it isn’t obvious in the day to day of a big pharma juggernaut. I once heard that in the beginning days of the internet, the NY Times typed in the full newspaper – just digitizing the physical copy. This is an exact analogy for how most of big pharma is using agentic AI now: focused on re-creation of existing ways of working and increasing efficiencies.  

    The less obvious side to the speed and efficiency coin is the idea of changing the actual operating rhythm of the portfolio: shipping concepts to production in days rather than months or years. A digital health team ships a feature in weeks based on a usage pattern; a pharma commercial team can spend a quarter just getting requirements gathered. Or radical focus: a digital health commercial function is built around a handful of clear outcomes, not a dozen sub-functions each optimizing their own area. Pairing radical focus with pharma’s strength in regulatory & compliance creates the opportunity to expedite patient outcomes in a way before unseen. Finally, digital health companies build with partners from day one because they have to, while pharma often plans in-house first and partner only once internal options are exhausted, organizational fatigue has taken grip, or the “build” is ready to get going.

    Making It a reality

    What would it look like if Pharma embraced a digital health style way of working? Potentially, it would be by replacing the sprawl of sub-divisional dashboards and systems with one shared data layer, a single source of truth on HCP engagement, patient journeys, tactic performance, and pipeline, with access rights layered on top rather than entirely separate systems per function. Instead of a field force, maybe it’s a cognitive command center AI that operates across functions instead of within one, flagging a stalled account to market access, content, and the field team simultaneously instead of routing sequentially through three approval chains. And rethinking the field model itself: rather than dispersing reps to chase five-minute HCP windows on a static cycle, that same investment could fund fewer, richer touchpoints, twice-yearly events, and deeper partnerships with different, AI native platforms with distribution & reach like OpenEvidence that HCPs are already choosing to use on their own terms.

    None of this requires more commercial budget than pharma is already spending. It requires spending it on reimagining commercial as a function instead of speeding up an existing function. Digital health and pharma have plenty to learn from, and with, each other, and AI is the first real forcing function either industry has had to do it. The Pharma commercial teams that treat this as a chance to redesign the model, not just streamline it, will be the ones that change what’s possible for HCPs and patients. The remainder will only benefit from greater day to day efficiency.

    Source: champpixs, Getty Images

    Suzy Jackson

    Suzy Jackson is a Digital Health & Commercial Pharma subject matter expert and former Digital Health Chief Commercial Officer at RVO Health, as well as former Head of the North America Life Sciences Commercial Consulting team at Accenture. Suzy’s independent advisory focuses on Commercial technology, strategy, Go-To-Market efforts, market entry, partnership shaping, and competitive analysis across Pharma and Consumer Health. Outside of her advisory work, Suzy is an avid scuba diver, traveler, and sits on the Boards of two non-profits focused on women’s rights, legal advocacy, and survivorship from trauma and abuse.

    This post appears through the MedCity Influencers program. Anyone can publish their perspective on business and innovation in healthcare on MedCity News through MedCity Influencers. Click here to find out how.

  • STAT+: Roche goes beyond licensing in deal with Chinese biotech

    STAT+: Roche goes beyond licensing in deal with Chinese biotech

    DOJ signals it will start scrutinizing drugmakers, PhrMA sues Trump administration, and more biotech news

    gantenerumab Alzheimer's disease Roche
    Sebastien Bozon/AFP via Getty Images

    Elaine’s stories explore the boom in new obesity treatments, new drug payment models, the ways companies are affected by FDA changes, and the emerging psychedelics drug sector. She co-writes The Readout newsletter, and co-hosts STAT’s weekly biotech podcast, The Readout Loud. You can reach Elaine on Signal at elaineywchen.70.

    Want to stay on top of the science and politics driving biotech today? Sign up to get our biotech newsletter in your inbox.

    Good morning. Let’s get straight to the news.

    The need-to-know this morning

    Roche goes beyond licensing in deal with Chinese biotech

    Over the past few years, pharma companies have flocked to China to license existing drug candidates. Roche is taking a new approach, partnering with Chinese startup Defand Therapeutics to discover new medicines.

    STAT+ Exclusive Story

    Already have an account? Log in

    STAT+

    STAT+

    This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers

    Unlock this article — plus in-depth analysis, newsletters, premium events, and news alerts.

    Already have an account? Log in

    View All Plans

    To read the rest of this story subscribe to STAT+.

    Subscribe

    1. National Biotech Reporter

      Elaine’s stories explore the boom in new obesity treatments, new drug payment models, the ways companies are affected by FDA changes, and the emerging psychedelics drug sector. She co-writes The Readout newsletter, and co-hosts STAT’s weekly biotech podcast, The Readout Loud. You can reach Elaine on Signal at elaineywchen.70.

  • STAT+: Roche inks drug discovery deal with Chinese biotech, focused on molecular glue medicines

    STAT+: Roche inks drug discovery deal with Chinese biotech, focused on molecular glue medicines

    Allison covers what hot startups are getting up to, and who’s financing them. She is also co-host of the weekly biotech podcast, “The Readout Loud.” You can reach Allison on Signal at AllisonDeAngelis.01.

    Roche is digging deeper into the biotech industry in China, striking a new partnership with a drug startup there. But rather than licensing the startup’s clinical-stage medicines, Roche is enlisting it to discover new ones, signaling a potential shift in global drug development. 

    Chinese startup Defand Therapeutics said Thursday that it had signed a collaboration deal with Roche to develop molecular glue medicines. Under the deal, Defand will discover and develop multiple drugs for cancer and immune-driven diseases. The financial terms were not disclosed, but a source with knowledge of the agreement said it could be worth close to $1 billion between the upfront fee and payments Defand could get if it meets various preclinical, clinical, and regulatory goals. 

    Molecular glue therapies are a buzzy new area of drug development, designed to create a sticky, more effective connection onto problematic proteins to destroy them. Development of these drugs has just begun to accelerate, thanks in large part to the data from Revolution Medicines, showing its molecular glue treatment Rasonque nearly doubled the survival rate of patients with pancreatic cancer. 

    STAT+ Exclusive Story

    Already have an account? Log in

    STAT+

    STAT+

    This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers

    Unlock this article — plus daily coverage and analysis of the pharma industry — by subscribing to STAT+.

    Already have an account? Log in

    View All Plans

    To read the rest of this story subscribe to STAT+.

    Subscribe