AUTH/2915/12/16 and AUTH/2916/12/16 - Anonymous v Janssen-Cilag and Napp

Venue for promotional meeting

  • Received
    12 December 2016
  • Case number
    AUTH/2915/12/16 and AUTH/2916/12/16
  • Applicable Code year
    2016
  • Completed
    20 January 2017
  • No breach Clause(s)
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal
  • Review
    February 2017 Review

Case Summary

​An anonymous, non-contactable complainant, who described him/herself as a health professional, complained about the venue for a forthcoming meeting organised to promote Invokana (canagliflozin) for use in type 2 diabetes. The invitation referred to Janssen-Cilag and Napp Pharmaceuticals and so the matter was taken up with both companies. The meeting was entitled 'A Practical Guide to Manage Type 2 Diabetes and its Complications'. It was held in December 2016 at a named restaurant. 

The meeting started at 18.30 with registration and buffet dinner and the educational part of the meeting started an hour later. There were two speakers and the meeting concluded with 15 minutes for questions and closed at 21.30. 

The complainant stated that he/she had received the invitation and was concerned that the venue was not appropriate; the venue and cuisine would be the main attraction for attending the meeting and not the educational content. The group of restaurants was world renown [sic]. The complainant provided screenshots from the restaurant website which featured celebrity endorsements. 

The detailed response from Janssen is given below. 

Case AUTH/2915/12/16 

The Panel noted from the screenshots provided by the complainant that the celebrity endorsements were in relation to the restaurant used rather than others in the restaurant chain as submitted by Janssen. Similar celebrity endorsements appeared on the hotel website where the restaurant in question was located. 

The Panel considered that the cost of the subsistence (food and drinks) at £48.88 per health professional attendee was on the limits of acceptability for a buffet at an evening meeting lasting two hours.

The Panel noted the meeting arrangements and the numbers invited. There was no description in the meeting invitation about the venue but it was likely it would be known by the invitees. It was not unexpected that the website for a restaurant would be very positive about the food and facilities offered. The Panel noted Janssen's submission that the venue was centrally located for attendees. Taking all the circumstances into account, the Panel considered that although the venue was on the limits of acceptability its use for the meeting in question did not amount to a breach of the Code and it ruled accordingly. Given this ruling the Panel did not consider that the company had failed to maintain high standards or had brought discredit upon or reduced confidence in the pharmaceutical industry. Thus the Panel ruled no breaches of the Code including Clause 2.

Case AUTH/2916/12/16 

The Panel noted that Napp had not provided a separate response. Janssen stated that although the companies co-promoted Invokana, the meeting in question was a Janssen only meeting. The Panel was concerned that Napp's logo appeared on the invitation and considered that if the meeting was nothing to do with Napp then its name should not appear on the invitation. However, according to Janssen, Napp had had nothing to do with the meeting. The Panel therefore ruled no breaches of the Code including Clause 2.​