Healthy Skepticism Library item: 17607

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Three major pharmaceutical companies found in breach of ABPI code of practice
PJ Online 2010 Apr 12
http://www.pjonline.com/news/three_major_pharmaceutical_companies_found_in_breach_of_abpi_code_of_practice

Full text:

Three major pharmaceutical companies have become the latest to contravene the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry’s code of practice.

Solvay Healthcare, Pfizer and Procter & Gamble were all found to have breached the code, which sets standards for the promotion of medicines by the industry to healthcare professionals.

According to the February 2010 code of practice review (PDF 350K), complaints about Solvay and Pfizer’s promotional activities were submitted last year to the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority, which polices the code on behalf of the ABPI.

Solvay was accused of providing a GP with a service that amounted to an inducement to prescribe its cardiovascular product Omacor (omega-3-acid ethyl esters 90), while Pfizer’s alleged code breach was related to the promotion of its smoking cessation product Champix (varenicline).

Procter & Gamble made a voluntary admission of fault after distributing an exhibition guide at a conference that contained the strapline “confidence in colitis”, which had already been ruled against by the PMCPA.

Following investigations into the claims, the authority ruled all three companies to be in breach of the industry code (see panel), and issued Solvay with a public reprimand for its violation.

In accordance with procedure the PMCPA briefly publicised each case in this week’s issue of The Pharmaceutical Journal (3/10 April 2010), as well as recent issues of the British Medical Journal and the Nursing Standard.

Details of the ABPI code of practice breaches

Solvay Healthcare

Following a complaint issued by a primary care trust employee, the PMCPA investigated a Solvay service whereby a GP had received four payments totalling £1,700 to pay for a nurse to review patients’ cardiovascular risks. The authority concluded that Solvay failed to ensure the grants constituted a bona fide “medical and educational good and service”, and thus gave what amounted to an inducement to prescribe.

Solvay was ruled in breach of the following clauses of the ABPI’s code of practice:

• Clause 2: Bringing discredit upon and reducing confidence in the pharmaceutical industry
• Clause 18.1: Providing a health professional with what amounted to an inducement to prescribe a medicine
• Clause 18.4: Failing to comply with the requirements for the provision of medical and educational goods and services

Pfizer

Johnson & Johnson lodged a complaint about Pfizer’s promotion of the smoking cessation product Champix (varenicline) through GP magazine, and was found to have made claims about Champix that were misleading, that were not capable of substantiation and that did not comply with an undertaking given by Pfizer after a complaint previously upheld by the PMCPA.

Pfizer was ruled in breach of clause 2 of the code, as well as:

• Clause 7.2: Making claims and comparisons that were misleading and not sufficiently complete for readers to form their own opinion of the therapeutic value of the medicine
• Clause 7.3: Using misleading comparisons
• Clause 7.4: Using data that could not be substantiated
• Clause 7.8: Using misleading graphs
• Clause 9.1: Failing to maintain high standards
• Clause 25: Failing to comply with an undertaking

Procter & Gamble

Procter & Gamble voluntarily admitted to breaching the code by putting an exhibition guide that should have been withdrawn into delegate bags for an international congress held in the UK. The guide had previously been ruled to be in breach of the code and the company had given an undertaking not to use it.

For failing to comply with that undertaking, the PMCPA ruled Procter & Gamble to be in breach of clauses 2, 9.1 and 25 of the code.