Allergan Limited, Shire Pharmaceuticals Limited, Gedeon Richter and Sanofi named in advertisements for breaches of the ABPI Code of Practice

​Allergan Limited, Shire Pharmaceuticals Limited, Gedeon Richter and Sanofi have breached the ABPI Code of Practice for the Pharmaceutical Industry.

Press Release 16 December 2013

Allergan Limited, Shire Pharmaceuticals Limited, Gedeon Richter and Sanofi have breached the ABPI Code of Practice for the Pharmaceutical Industry and brought discredit upon, and reduced confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry. In addition, Allergan has been publicly reprimanded.

Allergan – Case AUTH/2460/11/11
For successively failing to comply with an undertaking by continuing to claim that Vistabel/Botox was clinically more potent than Bocouture/Xeomin, Allergan was ruled in breach of the following clauses of the Code:
Clause 2 - Bringing discredit upon, and reducing confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry.
Clause 9.1 - Failing to maintain high standards.
Clause 25 - Failing to comply with an undertaking.
Allergan was also publicly reprimanded by the Code of Practice Appeal Board.


Allergan – Cases AUTH/2487/3/12 and AUTH/2489/3/12
For again successively failing to comply with an undertaking by continuing to claim that Vistabel/Botox was clinically more potent than Bocouture/Xeomin, Allergan was ruled in breach of the following clauses of the Code:
Clause 2 - Bringing discredit upon, and reducing confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry.
Clause 25 - Failing to comply with an undertaking.
Allergan was also publicly reprimanded by the Code of Practice Appeal Board.


Shire – Case AUTH/2593/4/13
For distributing a journal reprint that contained a bar chart which gave an incorrect and misleading comparison between Shire’s medicine and that of a competitor (the journal reprint included a corrected bar chart), and for not ensuring that readers were aware of the error, Shire was ruled in breach of the following clauses of the Code:
Clause 2 - Bringing discredit upon, and reducing confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry.
Clause 7.2 - Making misleading claims.
Clause 7.3 - Making a misleading comparison.
Clause 7.4 - Making claims incapable of substantiation.


Gedeon Richter – Case AUTH/2612/6/13
As a result of a third party engaged by Gedeon Richter, but without a formal agreement regarding the third party’s use of Twitter, sending a tweet which promoted Gedeon Richter’s prescription only medicine to the public, Gedeon Richter was ruled in breach of the following clauses of the Code:
Clause 2 - Bringing discredit upon, and reducing confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry.
Clause 9.1 - Failing to maintain high standards.
Clause 22.1 - Advertising a prescription only medicine to the public.


Sanofi – Case AUTH/2619/7/13
For failing to comply with an undertaking by using a claim in a press release similar to one previously ruled in breach of the Code, Sanofi was ruled in breach of the following clauses of the Code:
Clause 2 - Bringing discredit upon, and reducing confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry.
Clause 9.1 - Failing to maintain high standards.
Clause 25 - Failing to comply with an undertaking.


Sanofi – Case AUTH/2622/7/13
For one of its representatives persuading an NHS administrative assistant to send, on his/her behalf, a promotional email via the NHS.net system to local GP practices, Sanofi was ruled in breach of the following clauses of the Code:
Clause 2 - Bringing discredit upon, and reducing confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry.
Clause 9.1 - Failing to maintain high standards.
Clause 9.9 - Failing to obtain prior permission from the recipients to use email for promotional purposes.
Clause 12.1 - Disguising promotional materials.
Clause 15.2 - Failing to maintain a high standard of ethical conduct.

The advertisements will appear in The Nursing Standard on 18 December 2013 and the BMJ and The Pharmaceutical Journal on 21 December 2013.

Notes to Editors:

For more information please contact: Vicky Bewer, 020 7747 8884, mobile 07920 863650.
The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA; www.pmcpa.org.uk) was established by The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) on 1 January 1993 to operate the ABPI Code of Practice for the Pharmaceutical Industry at arm's length from the ABPI itself. The Code and other information, including details about ongoing cases and completed cases, is available at www.pmcpa.org.uk.

Complaints submitted under the Code are considered in the first instance by the Code of Practice Panel which consists of three of the following, the Director, Deputy Director, Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the Authority. One member of the Authority acts as the case preparation manager for a particular case and does not participate when the Panel considers that case. Both the complainant and the respondent company may appeal to the Code of Practice Appeal Board against rulings made by the Panel.

The Appeal Board is chaired by an independent legally qualified chairman. For the consideration of any case, independent members from outside the industry, including the Chairman, must be in a majority. Details of the Appeal Board’s composition can be found on our website.