AUTH/2629/8/13 - Anonymous v Menarini

Meeting sponsorship

  • Received
    22 July 2013
  • Case number
    AUTH/2629/8/13
  • Applicable Code year
    2012
  • Completed
    25 October 2013
  • No breach Clause(s)
    22.1 and 22.2
  • Breach Clause(s)
    2, 9.1 and 19.1
  • Sanctions applied
    Undertaking received
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal
  • Review
    February 2014

Case Summary

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant was concerned about pharmaceutical company sponsorship of the annual scientific meeting of the Bihar Jharkhand Medical Association (BJMA), UK, held in Bolton in July 2013.  The complainant only named Lundbeck and so the complaint was taken up with that company.  On receipt of Lundbeck’s response, a copy of the scientific agenda provided to Lundbeck by the BJMA listed other companies which had also sponsored the meeting and so the matter was additionally taken up with them.

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, children’s activities and entertainment etc combined; the meeting programme detailed children’s football and variety performances, including BJMA’s Got Talent.  The BJMA Facebook page stated ‘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.  Despite the escalating costs involved in organising such a big event, we have managed to keep the delegate fee to a very reasonable level.  We hope that you would encourage your family and friends to attend in large numbers and make the programme a big success’.

The complainant was concerned that pharmaceutical companies should not have sponsored such an event and should not have stands promoting their products in front of members of the public.

The detailed responses from Lundbeck, Chiesi, Menarini and Bayer are given below.

It appeared to the Panel that the main purpose of the meeting was the social/cultural aspects, a view reinforced by the documentation for the meeting.  The Panel did not consider that the meeting met the requirements of the Code.  The two day meeting had a maximum scientific content of just over three hours.  The meeting was mainly a social event; the limited scientific programme did not appear to be the main purpose of the event.  The Panel had little information about the costs of putting on the exhibition on the Saturday.  The organising secretary had stated that the money paid by pharmaceutical companies ‘hardly met the cost of the scientific meeting’.  This seemed at odds with the activities arranged and that each delegate was to pay £60 to cover everything other than accommodation.  The fact that companies had sponsored speakers was also of concern.  Lundbeck had paid for two speakers and for an exhibition stand.  The company briefed the speakers.

Chiesi had paid for a speaker and for an exhibition stand which it later decided not to use because of lack of clarity regarding the positioning of the stand in relation to the room where the scientific sessions were being held.  Chiesi briefed the speaker.

Menarini had paid for two speakers and for an exhibition stand.  Menarini had chosen the subject areas and the speakers and the meeting organisers had agreed that they were suitable.  Menarini had briefed the speakers.

Bayer had paid for one speaker and for an exhibition stand.  The company had briefed the speaker and had provided slides for the speaker to use.

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.

It appeared that companies had limited information about the meeting before agreeing to support it.  They should have ensured that comprehensive copies of documentation had been supplied by the organisers.

In relation to alleged promotion to the public, the Panel noted the companies’ submissions including that only registered delegates accessed the exhibition area.  Chiesi had not had an exhibition stand and thus there could be no breach in relation to promoting to the public.  The complainant had not provided any details regarding this allegation.  The complainant had the burden of proving his/her complaint on the balance of probabilities.  The Panel considered that this had not been discharged in relation to the alleged promotion to the public and the role of Lundbeck, Menarini and Bayer and no breaches of the Code were ruled.

Taking all the circumstances into account the Panel considered that the arrangements for the meeting did not meet the requirements of the Code such that it was not a meeting for a primarily educational purpose as set out in that clause.  Pharmaceutical company involvement in the agenda ie sponsoring speakers and paying for exhibition space and the impression given by pharmaceutical company involvement, particularly in the documents provided by the complainant was unacceptable.  The Panel ruled a breach of the Code with regard to Lundbeck’s, Chiesi’s, Menarini’s and Bayer’s involvement.  Chiesi appealed this ruling.  The Panel considered that high standards had not been maintained and each company was ruled in breach of the Code.  These rulings were not appealed. 

The Panel noted that Clause 2 was used as a sign of particular censure and reserved for such use.  The supplementary information referred to excessive hospitality.  The Panel decided the circumstances were such as to bring discredit upon and reduce confidence in the pharmaceutical industry and each company was ruled in breach of Clause 2.  Chiesi appealed this ruling. 

Upon appeal by Chiesi of the ruling in Case AUTH/2628/8/13 that the meeting did not comply with the Code and the ruling of a breach of Clause 2, the Appeal Board noted that hospitality as defined in the supplementary information to the Code was limited to meals, drinks, accommodation, genuine registration fees and the payment of reasonable travel costs which a company might provide to sponsor a delegate to attend a meeting.  It was an established principle of the Code that any meeting held or sponsored by a pharmaceutical company must have a clear educational content.  The Appeal Board had some reservations about the educational content at the meeting.  The Appeal Board noted that although Chiesi had paid £1,000 which it had subsequently requested be returned, there was no evidence that it had provided any hospitality for the meeting.  There was an impression from the agenda that Chiesi had contributed to the catering costs.  The email from the organiser stated that whilst other pharmaceutical companies’ payments would be used to pay for catering for delegates, Chiesi’s would not.  On this very narrow ground the Appeal Board ruled no breach of the Code in relation to the hospitality allegation. The appeal on this point was successful.

The Appeal Board noted its comments above and considered that a significant factor in this case was the apparent deliberate lack of key information from the organisers.  The Appeal Board noted the Panel’s ruling that high standards had not been maintained and considered that Chiesi could have undertaken greater diligence to ensure that its involvement with the meeting complied with the Code but did not consider that in the circumstances it had brought discredit upon, or reduced confidence in the pharmaceutical industry.  The Appeal Board ruled no breach of Clause 2.  The appeal on this point was successful.