Gedeon Richter named and shamed
pharmafile | September 9, 2013 | News story | Medical Communications, Sales and Marketing | ABPI, Gedeon Richter, PMCPA
Gedeon Richter (UK) has been named and shamed in advertisements by the PMCPA, which rules on breaches of the ABPI Code of Practice.
The company has made a total of eight breaches of the Code – including twice contravening the most serious clause, which deals with bringing discredit on the pharma industry.
The adverts appear in the current issues of the BMJ, Pharmaceutical Journal and Nursing Standard and cover two complaints.
In the first case (AUTH/2575/2/13), the company was censured for sending an uncertified meeting invitation and “providing excessive hospitality at that meeting” – and then for issuing another invitation to a further meeting which promoted an unlicensed medicine.
An ex-employee of its subsidiary Preglem had complained about the promotion of Esmya (ulipristal acetate) at a meeting to be held in Barcelona in April this year.
The complainant alleged that the invitation to health professionals – available on a public website – appeared to promote Barcelona rather than the meeting itself.
The former employee also noted that the firm also held a meeting in Barcelona in March 2012, with similar invitations to those for the 2013 meeting, but which were sent before Esmya’s licence was granted in February 2012.
Richter was held to have breached clause 2 (‘bringing discredit upon, and reducing confidence in, the pharma industry’), clause 3.1 (‘promoting a medicine prior to the grant of a marketing authorization’), clause 9.1 (‘failing to maintain high standards’), clause 14.2 (‘failing to certify promotional material before issue’) and clause 19.1 (‘providing excessive hospitality’).
In the second case (AUTH/2601/5/13) the company compounded its problems by failing to comply with an undertaking (breaching clause 25) – made following a third case – because it continued to use promotional meeting invitations that did not include relevant prescribing information.
Not only did this action mean it breached clause 9.1 (‘failing to maintain high standards’) but Richter also fell foul of clause 2 for the second time.
So serious is this considered by the PMCPA, that any company which does something to invoke clause 2 either has to issue a corrective statement or is the subject of a public reprimand.
Adam Hill
Related Content
The November 2020 issue of Pharmafocus is available to read free online now!
The latest monthly edition of Pharmafocus is available to read for free online now!
UK life sciences industry does not want no-deal Brexit, says ABPI Chief
Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s sudden change of position that the UK is now expecting a …
ABPI Chief Executive Mike Thompson to retire by the end of 2019
The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) has announced that its Chief Executive Mike …
