AstraZeneca breached Code over Nexium meeting invitation email missing prescribing information (AUTH/1800/2/06)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1800/2/06
Complainant	Primary Care Trust Head of Prescribing
Company	AstraZeneca UK Limited
Material	Email invitation (and attached agenda) to an educational meeting
Meeting	“Burning Issues in Gastroenterology”
Product mentioned	Nexium (esomeprazole)
Main issue	Brand mentioned without prescribing information; generic name not adjacent to brand name
Panel decision	Breach Clauses 4.1 and 4.3; no breach Clause 10.1
Sanction	Undertaking received
Complaint received	14 February 2006 (also reported as 15 February 2006)
Case completed	05 April 2006 (also reported as 6 April 2006)
Applicable Code year	2003
Appeal	No appeal

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

A Primary Care Trust (PCT) head of prescribing complained about an emailed invitation to an educational meeting, “Burning Issues in Gastroenterology”, sponsored by AstraZeneca.
The invitation was emailed from two different sources.
The invitation referred to an indication for Nexium (esomeprazole) but did not include prescribing information.
One of the emails attaching the invitation also referred to Nexium without prescribing information.
In both instances, the non-proprietary name did not appear immediately adjacent to the brand name.
AstraZeneca said an earlier, non-compliant draft agenda was mistakenly reloaded after a computer system upgrade and then attached to the email; the representative also mentioned Nexium without the generic name (an oversight).

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 4.1 (prescribing information required when a product is mentioned).
Breach of Clause 4.3 (non-proprietary name should appear immediately adjacent to the brand name).
No breach of Clause 10.1 (the Panel did not consider the email to be disguised promotion; recipients would be aware of the nature of the meeting).

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access