AUTH/2974/9/17 - Anonymous Clinician v ViiV Healthcare

Alleged promotion to the public

  • Received
    07 September 2017
  • Case number
    AUTH/2974/9/17
  • Applicable Code year
    2016
  • Completed
    14 November 2017
  • No breach Clause(s)
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal
  • Review
    February 2018 Review

Case Summary

An anonymous non contactable clinician complained about the ViiV Healthcare International Aids Society (IAS) Webinar. The complainant appeared to be a pharmacist.

ViiV's product Tivicay (dolutegrivir) was indicated in combination with other anti retroviral medicines for the treatment of Human Immunodeficienty Virus (HIV).

The complainant stated that he/she took part in Viiv's live 'online' meeting which was mostly about dolutegrivir. The complainant was surprised to see an HIV patient on the stage with the ViiV doctors whilst they discussed their prescription products. The patient appeared to be giving a silent blessing for dolutegrivir. Further, the prescribing information for dolutegrivir was not easily available via a single click.

The complainant stated that ViiV did not appear to know the requirements of the Code which was not good for the industry profile, reputation or regulation. The complainant alleged that ViiV's standards were not high enough. Having the patient on stage looked like the thumbs up for ViiV's medicines which was not good for trust and the confidence in the industry. The complainant referred to Clause 2.

The detailed response from ViiV is given below.

The Panel noted that the meeting invitation clearly stated that two speakers from ViiV would present data on dolutegravir and a third speaker would present the results of a patient survey. The survey highlighted key global trends about the emotional support people living with HIV received.

According to the transcript the speaker did not mention ViiV's product or indeed any other product but he/she was presenting at a meeting where data on Tivicay was discussed in detail.

The Panel considered that in the particular circumstances of this case, contracting the expert to discuss his/her research into the impact of HIV on patients at a meeting where medicines were promoted, did not mean that a prescription only medicine had been promoted to the public. This speaker's expertise would be of interest and in this situation he/she was not a member of the public per se. In that regard, the Panel ruled no breach of the Code.

The Panel noted ViiV's submission that the prescribing information was included in the invitation, available on demand during the Webinar via four clicks as well as being shown on the slides for nearly four minutes during the Q&A session. The prescribing information was supplied and thus the Panel ruled no breach of the Code.

Given its rulings above the Panel did not consider that ViiV had failed to maintain high standards as alleged nor had it brought discredit upon or reduced confidence in the pharmaceutical industry. The Panel ruled no breach including of Clause 2.​