Camurus, Accord, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (Sobi), Strides Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline and Sintetica named in advertisements for breaches of the ABPI Code

Camurus – Case AUTH/3318/3/20

For providing hospitality to a health professional after the health professional and Camurus staff had attended a football match together, Camurus 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      - Providing inappropriate hospitality

 

Accord – Case AUTH/3339/4/20

For promoting cisatracurium, midazolam and paracetamol for injection/infusion on LinkedIn, Accord 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 26.1      - Advertising prescription only medicines to the public.

 

Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (Sobi) – Case AUTH/3345/5/20

For failing to include accurate information about the side effects of Alprolix (eftrenonacog alfa) and not reflecting the available information, Sobi 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 a misleading claim

Clause 7.4        - Making an unsubstantiated claim

Clause 7.9        - Making claims that did not reflect the available evidence      regarding possible adverse reactions

Clause 9.1        - Failing to maintain high standards.

 

Strides Pharma – Case AUTH/3347/5/20

For promoting Strivit D3 (colecalciferol) on LinkedIn, Strides Pharma 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 26.1      - Advertising a prescription only medicine to the public.

 

Boehringer Ingelheim – Case AUTH/3293/1/20

For a misleading claim that Pradaxa 110mg (dabigatran) could be used in any patient at increased risk of bleeding when it was contraindicated in those with severe renal impairment, which risked patient safety, Boehringer Ingelheim 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 a misleading claim

Clause 9.1        - Failing to maintain high standards.

 

Vifor Pharma – Case AUTH/3301/1/20

For a website which promoted intravenous (IV) iron and was linked to the promotion of Ferinject (ferric carboxymaltose) and which was not sufficiently complete for the recipient to form their own opinion of the therapeutic value of the medicines, included a misleading comparison with oral iron and did not have the required obligatory information, Vifor was ruled in breach of the following clauses of the Code:

Clause 2           - Bringing discredit upon, and reducing confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry.

Clause 4.1        - Failing to include prescribing information

Clause 4.6        - Failing to include a clear, prominent statement as to where prescribing information could be found

Clause 4.9        - Failing to include information about how to report adverse events

Clause 7.2        - Making a misleading claim

Clause 7.3        - Making misleading comparisons

Clause 9.1        - Failing to maintain high standards

Clause 14.1      - Failing to certify promotional material

 

GlaxoSmithKline – Case AUTH/3308/2/20

For a webinar registration page which promoted Relvar (fluticasone/vilanterol) but failed to comply with an undertaking in a previous case, GlaxoSmithKline was ruled in breach of the following clauses of the Code:

Clause 2           - Bringing discredit upon, and reducing confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry

Clause 4.1        - Failing to include up-to-date prescribing information

Clauses 4.4      - Failing to provide prescribing information in digital material

Clause 4.6        - Failing to include a clear, prominent statement as to where prescribing information could be found

Clause 9.1        - Failing to maintain high standards

Clause 29         - Failing to comply with an undertaking

 

Sintetica – Case AUTH/3309/2/20

For promoting Ampres 20mg/ml solution for injection (chloroprocaine hydrochloride) to the public on a personal LinkedIn account, Sintetica 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 26.1      - Promoting a prescription only medicine to the public

Clause 26.2      - Encouraging members of the public to ask for a specific prescription only medicine.