Partners.
Partners.
From 9am
The first day examines the patient properly. This is not a wellness check or a generic transformation conversation but a serious attempt to distinguish symptoms from causes, failed treatments from promising interventions, and comforting self-diagnosis from clinical reality.
[LEARN]
Pharma has scientific breakthroughs, talented people and huge resources, yet the effect is often weaker than it should be: too much content with too little adoption; too much activity with too little trust; and too much internal alignment with too little external movement. This session is an attempt to understand the symptoms we are here to treat.
[LEARN]
A deep dive into the chronic conditions undermining pharma from within: committee logic, career risk, performative alignment and the standard brand-planning cycle. How do these comorbidities combine to suppress sharper propositions before they ever reach the market? And where are teams already finding ways to treat them?
[LEARN]
Pharma routinely replaces real patients and clinicians with safer abstractions including segmented personas, targets, maps and data points. Outside specialists from consumer industries examine how to reintroduce real human behaviour into pharma's operating model, with a particular focus on AI's growing impact on communication and engagement.
[LEARN]
A second opinion from outside the ward. Experts from political campaigns, entertainment and luxury platforms challenge pharma's favourite self-diagnosis: "our industry is different." Sometimes it is, but it's a diagnosis that is often too convenient. This session examines what genuine behaviour change looks like in the real world and where pharma's vital signs may be stronger than it thinks.
[SOLVE]
Table teams examine a case file of a promising industry proposition that failed to change behaviour. Using the evidence gathered that morning, they identify the underlying condition, the missed warning signs, the failed treatment and the interventions that might have produced a better response.
From 9am
Concurrent sessions where commercial and medical teams examine specific conditions within their own operating environments. Each consult must produce a working diagnosis and a possible intervention.
Test new commercial models for a world where healthcare has moved beyond the controlled institutional setting and into the patient's home, local pharmacy, digital feeds, family routines and daily life.
Test interventions for the overproduction of scientific content. How do we reduce the volume of mass assets suppressing clinician attention, and what does genuinely usable, workload-reducing evidence look like?
Examine new models for field-force engagement. As AI-generated content floods the market, polished corporate outreach loses efficacy. What human "costly signals" still build genuine trust, and how can they be introduced systematically?
Test the future role of medical authority when HCPs begin using autonomous external AI systems to digest complex data before speaking to an MSL. What does human expertise become when it is no longer the first port of call?
Test whether traditional brand decoration has become a liability. Is the standard commercial brand acting as an expensive barrier to care? Does future value lie less in identity and more in infrastructure, access simplicity and service?
Examine how we close the gap between clinical trial logic and human psycho-logic. Can we stop real-world patient behaviour being smoothed over or ignored when translated into rigid corporate data sets?
[SOLVE]
Day One closes with a rapid, room-wide diagnostic round. The clinical team identifies the most important underlying conditions undermining pharma's health: what is acute, what is chronic, what is overdiagnosed, what is dangerously ignored and what failed treatments should not be prescribed again.
The output is the patient chart for Day Two.
From 9am
Yesterday we diagnosed the conditions. Today we treat them.
The clinical team now moves from analysis to intervention: what should be prescribed, what should be tested, what should be stopped and what would make the patient actually adhere?
[LEARN]
Explore real-world cases where pharma teams have successfully changed behaviour, overridden chronic organisational conditions or built more useful models of engagement, evidence, patient involvement or decision-making. A live clinical critic stress-tests the evidence. What really changed, what was merely cosmetic and what side effects emerge?
[LEARN]
Each table selects one priority condition from Day One and designs a targeted intervention. The intervention must be specific enough to try, strong enough to matter and robust enough to survive the conditions that usually weaken similar ideas.
Concurrent treatment-board sessions developing operational interventions within functional lines.
Redesign commercial performance frameworks. Build management structures that reward calculated risk, commercial curiosity and psychological safety, treating chronic aversion to bold action at its source.
Rehabilitate medical culture. Design operating frameworks that enable rapid proof-of-concept loops and adaptive trial models without being suppressed by legacy scientific gatekeeping
Design the future commercial anatomy. Map how commercial teams function when AI personalises content at scale and defining how pharma evolves from pure inventor to active scaler of external innovation.
Design the future medical anatomy. Build workflows where medical affairs balances agentic AI data triage with human trust management, while establishing the scientific stewardship of acquired external innovation.
[LEARN]
Legal, regulatory, medical and commercial leaders test whether a bold intervention can pass through compliance frameworks without losing its therapeutic value. The aim is not to dilute the treatment until it becomes harmless, but to make it potent, approvable and capable of changing behaviour.
[SOLVE]
Each table acts as a clinical panel and reviews the strongest interventions developed during the event. Every proposal is assigned one of three clinical outcomes:
Administer: The evidence is strong enough. Fund, scale and deploy. Trial: Promising, but unproven. Test as a bounded, time-limited experiment. Withdraw: The risks outweigh the benefits. Stop pretending this will work in the current environment.
Every table documents its decision in a short treatment plan including:
Gabriel de Paula Director of Operations (Events & Community) | Pharmageddon Europe Event Leader
Partners.
Thanks for being keen to join us in Amsterdam.
Our intention is to have one non-affiliated ‘patient’ for each team taking part.
If you are interested in being one of these, please write to us. We also have a limited number of spaces for HCPs, media and others. Please write to Gabriel on [email protected] or [email protected] if eager to take part.
