AUTH/3176/3/19 - Complainant v Orion

Email and website

  • Received
    23 March 2019
  • Case number
    AUTH/3176/3/19
  • Applicable Code year
    2016
  • Completed
    02 October 2019
  • No breach Clause(s)
  • Breach Clause(s)
  • Sanctions applied
    Undertaking received
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal
  • Review
    Published in the May 2020 Review

Case Summary

A complainant who described him/herself as a concerned UK health professional complained about an email from Orion Pharma UK, sent via a named healthcare publication.  The email urged recipients to watch a video on ‘Medicines optimisation and the clinical challenges in respiratory care’.  It was stated at the top of the email that ‘This campaign has been produced by [a named healthcare publisher] with funding from Orion Pharma’.

The complainant stated that the email contained promotional information but no prescribing information.  The email linked directly to the respiratory academy website which was sponsored by Orion (amongst others).  The complainant alleged that the website thanked its valued sponsors who provided arms-length funding to support running of the academy, although the website was designed according to Orion’s products and was clearly being used by Orion as a promotional tool, however, it did not appear to be described as such and had no prescribing information.

The complainant alleged that Orion’s email which intentionally pointed to the website demonstrated at least an extremely weak process and oversight and at most an intent to set up supposedly independent websites that could be used for promotional purposes.

The detailed response from Orion is given below.

The Panel did not consider that the email in question promoted any particular Orion medicine and thus no prescribing information or adverse event reporting statement was required.  The Panel ruled no breaches of the Code in this regard.

The Panel noted that the email stated that the campaign had been produced by the healthcare publisher with funding from Orion.  The Panel queried whether this was an accurate description noting Orion’s submission that it had commissioned the healthcare publisher to design, create and market a series of key opinion led educational videos focussing on respiratory management.  In the Panel’s view, Orion was more involved in the video campaign than the declarations in the email implied.  The Panel considered that Orion had failed to maintain high standards in this regard and ruled a breach of the Code in relation to the email.

The Panel noted that the complainant had not provided evidence to show that the respiratory academy website was promotional as alleged and the Panel therefore ruled no breach of the Code in this regard.

The Panel noted that the website stated that the video series, of which the video in question was a

part of, was produced by the healthcare publisher with funding from Orion Pharma.  In the Panel’s view, Orion was more involved in the production of the videos, including the video at issue above, than the website implied, and the Panel therefore ruled a breach of the Code in relation to declarations on the website about Orion’s involvement in the video campaign.  Orion had failed to maintain high standards in this regard and a further breach of the Code was ruled.

Whilst the Panel had some concerns about the video, in its view, the complainant had not established that the video was promotional and thus that prescribing information, the adverse event reporting statement or date on which the material was last drawn up was required.  The content of the video was not promotional and therefore it did not constitute disguised promotion.  The Panel therefore ruled no breaches of the Code in this regard.

Whilst in the Panel’s view the complainant had not established that the email or website were promotional, the Panel noted that both the video and email had been certified and therefore ruled no breach of the Code.

The Panel did not consider that the particular circumstances of this case were such as to warrant a breach of Clause 2 which was a sign of particular censure.  No breach of Clause 2 was ruled.