AUTH/3372/8/20 - Complainant v Bristol-Myers Squibb

Promotion of Opdivo on LinkedIn

  • Received
    12 August 2020
  • Case number
    AUTH/3372/8/20
  • Applicable Code year
    2019
  • Completed
    29 January 2021
  • Breach Clause(s)
  • Sanctions applied
    Undertaking received
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal

Case Summary

A complainant, who described him/herself as a concerned UK health professional, alleged that material which had been posted on LinkedIn by a US-based executive director and ‘liked’ by a named UK employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Ltd, promoted Opdivo (nivolumab) to the public as well as promoting it for an unlicensed indication. The material in question read:

‘Not 1 but 2 positive Ph 3 studies evaluating Opdivo have read out today in Upper-GI [gastrointestinal] Cancers, with potential to establish a new standard of care in Gastric and Esophageal Cancers…Cannot be more proud! Sincere thanks to the patients involved, their families and their treating oncologists’ followed by #BMS employee #Opdivo #nivolumab.’

The LinkedIn post referred to a Phase 3 trial which had evaluated Opdivo as adjuvant therapy for patients with resected oesophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. The trial had met its primary endpoint of disease-free survival. In that regard, the complainant noted that the data referred to types of cancer which were difficult to treat and so this would be key information to patients who had those types of cancer.

When the complaint was submitted, Opdivo was indicated in a number of cancerous conditions but not for oesophageal cancer.

The detailed response from Bristol-Myers Squibb is given below.

The Panel noted that LinkedIn was a global business and employment-oriented platform used mainly for professional networking. In the Panel’s view, it was not unacceptable for pharmaceutical companies to use LinkedIn accounts or for employees to use personal LinkedIn accounts although they needed to be mindful of the numerous compliance issues that might arise. The Panel considered that companies should assume that the Code would apply to all corporate LinkedIn posts and to work-related, personal LinkedIn posts by their employees unless, for very clear reasons, it could be shown otherwise; whether the Code applied would be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all of the circumstances. The content of posted material would be a crucial factor.

The Panel noted that the LinkedIn material in question had been posted by a US-based executive director; UK employees had however ‘liked’ the post. In that regard, the Panel considered that actions of the UK employees meant that they had in effect further disseminated the material. The Panel considered that the UK employees’ ‘liking’ of the post, and thus the dissemination of the material, brought the LinkedIn post within the scope of the Code.

The Panel noted that, as submitted by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the post which had been ‘liked’ by the named UK employee would have been available to members of the public. In that regard, the Panel considered that the post promoted Opdivo to the public as acknowledged by Bristol-Myers Squibb. A breach of the Code was ruled. Further, the Panel considered that the post would raise hopes of a successful treatment for upper GI cancers and encourage members of the public to ask their health professional to prescribe Opdivo. A breach of the Code was ruled as acknowledged by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

The Panel noted that when the LinkedIn post was published and then further disseminated by UK employees, Opdivo was not indicated for use in upper GI cancers. A further breach of the Code was ruled as acknowledged by Bristol-Myers Squibb.
The Panel considered that although Bristol-Myers Squibb had training and clear procedures in place to manage employees’ use of social media, it had been let down by employees who had not followed the local UK and Ireland work instruction resulting in breaches of the Code being ruled. In that regard, high standards had not been maintained. A breach of the Code was ruled.