AUTH/2105/3/08 - Anonymous v Procter & Gamble

Alleged Promotion of Asacol to the public

  • Received
    13 March 2008
  • Case number
    AUTH/2105/3/08
  • Applicable Code year
    2006
  • Completed
    09 April 2008
  • No breach Clause(s)
    2, 9.1, 20.1 and 20.2
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal
  • Review
    May 2008

Case Summary

An anonymous doctor complained that a poster, which had been placed in an outpatients department and designed to recruit patients into a clinical study, had caused numerous patients to ask for a once-daily prescription of Asacol (mesalazine). This had led to lengthy discussions with patients who did not fit into the trial criteria, but who still wanted the oncedaily Asacol. As far as the complainant was aware Asacol which was marked by Procter & Gamble had not been licensed for once daily use. The complainant considered that recruiting patients in this way was extremely unethical; it not only gave false hope of a once-daily preparation, but caused unnecessary tension between patients and the clinician.

The Panel noted that Procter & Gamble's involvement with the trial was limited to the provision of an educational grant. The sponsor, an NHS trust, was responsible for the study. Procter & Gamble had played no role in the generation or placement of the poster at issue; it had been independently produced by the NHS trust that ran the study. The Panel thus decided that Procter & Gamble was not responsible for the poster and no breach of the Code was ruled.