Pharma competitive intelligence and congress coverage, every competitor event cited and in the right inbox within the hour
Every rival readout and congress abstract becomes a cited event, and the right people know within the hour.
See one case, screen by screen ↓On day 3 of a congress, a rival’s Phase 3 late-breaker is presented at 08:40, their press release lands at 08:45 and their investor call is at 14:00. The programme team needs to know what it means for their own asset before that call — not in tomorrow’s summary. Meanwhile the trial registries, pipeline pages and securities filings keep moving: a maintenance study’s completion date can move seven months earlier in a quiet update to the registry record.
Most of a CI analyst’s week goes on collecting, formatting and checking sources rather than interpreting them. Of 2,318 accepted abstracts, a few dozen matter, and each must be read the moment its embargo lifts, lined up against your own data on the same endpoint and written up with the caveat that separate trials are not head-to-head. And the most interesting thing heard at a booth may be exactly the thing that cannot be used.
Estimated split for one high-impact competitor event, by hand and with the solution.
Six specialist agents watch, extract, check, compare and write up every event; the intelligence lead decides who is told.
Day 3 of EIMC 2026 in Vienna. Halvard presents HLV-217, an anti-TL1A antibody, in late-breaking abstract LB-07 at 08:40 — a direct threat to Northwind Bio’s own Veltrimab in ulcerative colitis. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Dana opens the congress board from the war room: 46 competitor abstracts tracked of 2,318 accepted, 4 events today, 3 waiting for Dana, 1 held for compliance and the Day 3 debrief due at 19:00. Each session sits on the timeline by hall, rated high impact, medium, watch or our data, with the team on site beside it — Sam Patel in Hall B, Lena Ortiz next at the Halvard symposium at 13:00, Dr. Maya Chen presenting in Hall C.
“46 competitor abstracts tracked of 2,318 accepted · agents read each one the moment its embargo lifts.”
The abstract is presented at 08:40 and read at 08:40. Event E-1041 opens with the abstract on the left, every fact it used highlighted in place: 1,014 adults, 47% with an inadequate response to at least one advanced therapy, clinical remission at week 12 of 27.4% versus 9.8% on placebo, and 33.2% versus 9.1% in patients positive for the companion genetic marker.
“Never read or use an abstract before its embargo lifts.”
Asset, sponsor, mechanism, indication, phase and study, patients, dose, primary endpoint, results, safety, next readout and filing guidance — each with a citation and a confidence score. Click a field and its passage lights up in the abstract. Fields below 0.85 confidence go to a person.
Halvard’s press release is matched to E-1041 rather than opened as a second event. It adds two facts the abstract did not have: a Biologics License Application planned for the second half of 2027, and an investor call today at 14:00 CEST. At 08:48 the Compliance Guard confirms both sources are public; at 08:52 the event reaches Dana with impact suggested High.
“Merge duplicates from abstract, press release and filing.”
Dana presses “Draft with agents”. The comparator lines up clinical remission at week 12 in ulcerative colitis: HLV-217 +17.6 points over placebo, Veltrimab +16.6 in VLT-302 from Northwind’s own top-line summary, the HLV-217 marker-positive subgroup +24.1. The landscape check finds three assets sharing the mechanism.
“Separate trials — not head-to-head.”
“HLV-217 now matches Veltrimab on the headline induction number,” in a slightly less refractory population — 47% versus 52% advanced-therapy experienced. The marker gives Halvard a precision story Veltrimab does not have, and its filing is guided about six months after Veltrimab’s. Three actions for the Veltrimab team follow, from leading with every-8-week maintenance to asking Medical Affairs for a position before the 14:00 call.
Nothing is sent until the CI lead approves.
Dana keeps the suggested High and sends to the Veltrimab programme team (14) and Immunology strategy (9) — 23 people. Medical affairs and business development stay unticked. The alert shows exactly what they will read, with the sources linked and the not-head-to-head caveat, before Dana signs and sends.
“Signed by Dana Okafor · the alert, its sources and your decision are kept on the audit trail.”
E-1041 moves from Detected through Extracted and Verified to Published, and HLV-217 is marked “Today” on the landscape. The activity trail lists every step, agent and human: the abstract read at 08:40, 14 fields extracted, the press release matched, both sources confirmed public, the so-what drafted, and Dana rating it High and sending it to 23 people.
Sam Patel’s note from the Orsolis stand quotes a staff member on an unblinded interim safety look that has not been published. The Compliance Guard holds the whole note and routes it to Priya Raman, compliance counsel. Only the public part — the study-design handout and booth display — can be released, and only by her.
“Held — not used in any brief or alert.”
The daily debrief runs at 18:00 each congress day, or whenever Dana asks. It gathers the sessions covered, matches field notes to abstracts — 3 notes, 2 used, 1 held — and drafts six sections: headlines, session by session, what it means for Veltrimab, from the floor, the watch list for the rest of today and Day 4, and the sources. Dana signs it, and it goes to the congress debrief list of 38 people by 07:00.
“8 sources, all public … Comparisons are across separate trials and are not head-to-head.”
The same late-breaker, seen by the five people it touches — what their congress week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Six specialist agents watch, extract, check, compare and write up every event; the intelligence lead decides who is told.
Polls trial registries, press releases, pipeline pages, securities filings and journals every hour, and keeps every version it captures.
Loads the congress programme, proposes the tracked list for the CI lead and reads each tracked abstract the moment its embargo lifts.
Turns a source into a structured event — asset, sponsor, mechanism, phase, endpoint, result, dates — with every field cited.
Checks every source and field note: public or licensed, embargo respected, no possible non-public information.
Places a result next to your own asset and its peers on the same endpoint and timepoint, with a caveat.
Drafts the “so what for us”, alerts, congress daily debriefs and weekly briefs in house style.
Rates impact, signs and sends. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Anyone on the team can ask about a competitor, an asset, a session or a catalyst — or tell it what to watch. Every answer cites the events it comes from.
What changed for Veltrimab today?
Three events matter today. HLV-217’s Phase 3 induction: remission 27.4% vs 9.8%, level with Veltrimab’s 24.9% vs 8.3%; marker-positive patients reach 33.2%. HLV-217 maintenance may read out 7 months earlier — completion moved to Nov 2026. And ORS-450, the oral IL-23R peptide: 41.0% remission in Crohn’s. Separate trials — not head-to-head.
Compare HLV-217 with Veltrimab
Week-12 induction in ulcerative colitis: remission 27.4% vs 24.9%; placebo 9.8% vs 8.3%; 17.6 vs 16.6 points over placebo; prior advanced therapy 47% vs 52%; maintenance ongoing vs subcutaneous every 8 weeks; filing H2 2027 vs H1 2027. Separate trials — not head-to-head. Populations and sites differ.
Why was a field note held?
Sam Patel’s note from the Orsolis booth quotes a staff member about an unpublished interim safety look. The Compliance Guard held it — nothing from it is used — and routed it to Priya Raman. The public part, the study-design handout, can be released by her.
Add TL1A × IL-23 bispecifics to the watch list
Added TL1A × IL-23 bispecific to the mechanisms. The Source Watcher will now read every registry record, press release and abstract for any sponsor working on it — today that adds MRD-905 (Meridale) and 2 preclinical programmes. You can see it in Settings → Watch list.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
What the agents watch, when they alert and who decides are settings, changed in plain words.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Watch list | 3 therapy areas · 8 competitors · 7 mechanisms | Add or remove any therapy area, sponsor or mechanism |
| High-impact events → programme team within 1 hour | On · needs your approval first | On · Off |
| Registry date moves by more than 3 months | On | On · Off |
| Deals with more than $25 M upfront | On | On · Off |
| Every tracked late-breaker → alert when presented | Off | On · Off |
| Alerts are approved by | Dana Okafor | Dana Okafor · Sam Patel · Omar Haddad |
| Daily debrief is signed by | Dana Okafor | Dana Okafor · Omar Haddad |
| Alert rules | Your rules | Add in plain words |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample congress data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · public and licensed sources only. Companies, assets and people named on this page are characters in the working solution.
Software that watches what competitors publish — trial registries, press releases, securities filings, congress abstracts and journals — and turns it into structured, sourced intelligence for programme and strategy teams. Congress Intelligence adds agents that capture each event, extract the facts with citations, compare them with your own data and draft the alert, the daily debrief and the weekly brief.
The Congress Abstract Reader loads the programme and proposes the tracked list for the CI lead. Each tracked abstract is read the moment its embargo lifts, field notes from the team on site are checked and matched to their abstracts, and a daily debrief is drafted at 18:00 each congress day, to be signed and sent by 07:00.
Yes, on the same endpoint and timepoint only, using your own reference data. Every comparison is labelled “Separate trials — not head-to-head”, and your own data is labelled as yours.
It reads public or licensed sources only, respects abstract embargo times and holds any field note that may contain non-public information for compliance counsel. A held note is never used until counsel releases its public part, and these three policies are locked on by compliance policy.
Yes. The Source Watcher checks the registries hourly and keeps every version, so a change shows as version against version — for example a primary completion date moving from June 2027 to November 2026. A rule alerts you when a registry date moves by more than 3 months.
Yes. The agents suggest an impact rating and draft the so-what; the CI lead rates the impact, chooses who is told and signs. Nothing is sent until the CI lead approves, and each decision is kept on the activity trail.
Yes. Therapy areas, competitors and mechanisms, the alert rules, the sources and who approves alerts and signs the debrief are all settings. New alert rules can be added in plain words.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements — your watch list, distribution lists, house style and your own reference data — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on a congress you have already covered.
Ask the literature in plain words and get a sourced answer in seconds.
1-min filmPipeline WatchEvery rival trial, readout and approval lands in a sourced brief for each programme, every Monday.
1-min filmPreclinical ReportsRaw study data becomes a draft report in hours, with every number traced to its source.
1-min filmWe’ll run Congress Intelligence on your own watch list and a congress programme you have covered.