Procter & Gamble: ‘Dear Doctor’ mesalazine letter—no disguised promotion, but misleading sponsorship wording breached Clause 9.1

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case numbers	AUTH/1898/10/06 and AUTH/1900/10/06
Complainants	Two general practitioners
Company	Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals UK Limited
Product referenced	Asacol (mesalazine modified release) (not mentioned in the letter)
Material	Professor ‘Dear Doctor’ letter about prescribing oral mesalazine; dated 2 October 2006; “date of preparation” 1 September 2006; reference AS7285
Main allegations	Disguised promotion; lack of transparency about support; nationwide mailing concerns
Panel findings	No promotion/disguised promotion; breach for misleading sponsorship description and insufficient care in managing distribution
Breach clauses	Clause 9.1
Non-breach clauses	Clause 4.1 (AUTH/1898/10/06 only), Clause 10.1
Sanction	Undertaking received
Complaint received	10 October 2006 (AUTH/1898/10/06); 12 October 2006 (AUTH/1900/10/06)
Completed	10 January 2007 (PDF) / 09 January 2007 (HTML listing)
Applicable Code year	2006
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

📋

⌄

Two general practitioners complained about a ‘Dear Doctor’ letter from a university hospital professor about prescribing oral mesalazine preparations.
The letter stated it was “sponsored by an educational grant from Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals”; Procter & Gamble supplied Asacol (mesalazine modified release).
Complainants alleged the letter was disguised promotion for Asacol (including concerns about use of the professor’s headed paper, omission of product name, and a reference code “AS7285”).
One complainant said the professor denied responsibility for the letter being used in a nationwide campaign.
The mailing appeared to have gone wider than the professor originally envisaged; it was unclear who generated the final mailing list and on what basis.
Procter & Gamble said it funded re-printing and distribution (postage/mailing costs) via a third party; the professor was author/final signatory and had editorial control.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 4.1 (Case AUTH/1898/10/06 only): the letter did not promote Asacol and therefore did not require prescribing information.
No breach of Clause 10.1: the letter was not disguised promotion for Asacol.
Breach of Clause 9.1: high standards were not maintained due to inadequate management of distribution and because describing the funding as an “educational grant” was misleading given P&G paid the mailing costs.

🔒

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