lundbeck_wall_0

Pharma sponsored ‘weekend family gathering’

pharmafile | February 21, 2014 | News story | Medical Communications, Sales and Marketing ABPI, Facebook, PMCPA 

PMCPA rules several firms in breach of ABPI Code clauses on standards and sponsorship

Several pharma companies have breached ABPI Code of Practice rules on hospitality and sponsorship after putting money towards what was described as a ‘social event’.

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant contacted the PMCPA, which enforces the Code, about pharma company sponsorship of the annual scientific meeting of the Bihar Jharkhand Medical Association (BJMA), held in Bolton, UK, last July.

The complainant alleged that the meeting in question was “not a fully educational meeting and was more of a weekend family gathering event”, with scientific sessions combined with children’s activities and entertainment such as football and a variety performance called BJMA’s Got Talent.

The association’s own Facebook page said: “We have arranged a high quality scientific meeting running in two parallel sessions, variety of entertainment programme, finest cuisine from a renowned caterer and various sporting events for the children.”

The delegate fee had been kept “to a very reasonable level” and the BJMA’s message online concluded: “We hope that you would encourage your family and friends to attend in large numbers and make the programme a big success.”

The PMCPA asked Lundbeck, Chiesi, Menarini and Bayer to consider whether pharma should sponsor such an event or have stands promoting their products in front of members of the public.

The two-day meeting had a maximum scientific content of just over three hours and was mainly a social event – and the panel was concerned that the organising secretary said the money paid by the companies “hardly met the cost of the scientific meeting”.

This seemed “at odds with the activities arranged”, the PMCPA said – and the fact that companies had sponsored speakers was also “of concern”.

Lundbeck and Menarini had each paid for two speakers and an exhibition stand, while Bayer and Chiesi had each paid for a speaker and a stand – although the latter decided not to use it. All the pharma firms briefed the speakers.

“All the companies’ involvement with their speakers was at odds with the declaration on the programme that pharmaceutical companies had not influenced the content of the slides,” the PMCPA said.

The panel also suggested they should have ensured that comprehensive copies of documentation had been supplied by the organisers – the pharma firms seemed to have limited information in advance about the event.

Since only registered delegates accessed the exhibition area – and the complainant had not provided any details regarding this allegation – no breaches of the Code were ruled in relation to promotion to the public.

However, the meeting did not meet the requirements of the Code because it was not for a primarily educational purpose – so the impression given by the pharma companies’ involvement was “unacceptable”.

The Panel ruled breaches of the Code for Lundbeck, Chiesi, Menarini and Bayer: 9.1 (which says high standards must be maintained at all times), 19.1 (on hospitality) and – the most serious misdemeanour – clause 2 (dealing with discredit to, and reduction of confidence in, the pharma industry).

Appeal

Chiesi appealed against the ruling, and the Appeal Board said that, although the firm had paid £1,000 which it had subsequently requested be returned, there was no evidence that it had provided any hospitality for the meeting.

An email from the organiser stated that while other pharma companies’ payments would be used to pay for catering for delegates, Chiesi’s would not – so “on this very narrow ground” the Board found there was no breach of the hospitality clause.

Finally, the Appeal Board said that, while Chiesi “could have undertaken greater diligence to ensure that its involvement with the meeting complied with the Code”, it ruled there had been no breach of Clause 2.

The verdict is published in the February 2014 Review.

Adam Hill

 

 

Related Content

pharmafocus_november_2020_cover

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!

brexit-hintergrund_web

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 …

Facebook image

Over half of all anti-vaccine ads on Facebook stem from just two advertisers

A new study has revealed that the largest share of anti-vaccine advertisements on Facebook originate …

Latest content