AUTH/1961/2/07: Anonymous consultant gynaecologist v Serono (international meeting sponsorship) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1961/2/07
Parties	Anonymous consultant gynaecologist v Serono
Issue	International meeting invitations/sponsorship; alleged inducement and non-transparent selection; hospitality concerns
Product(s) mentioned	Gonal-F
Applicable Code year	2006
Clauses considered	2, 18.1, 19.1
Decision	No breach
Complaint received	19 February 2007
Case completed	30 April 2007
Appeal	No appeal
Notable figures cited by Panel	ESHRE delegates sponsored (2004–2006): 120 different delegates; 5 attended all three years; ~1 in 5 in 2005/2006 also attended prior year; per-delegate costs (incl flights): £1,184.81 (2004), £1,540.64 (2005), £1,118.66 (2006)

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

📋

⌄

An anonymous consultant gynaecologist complained about Serono inviting “quite a few” gynaecologists to international scientific conferences abroad (eg ESHRE), with all expenses paid, often in “lavish hotels in nice locations”.
The complainant questioned why some clinicians were invited and others were not, suggesting the practice might be a reward/inducement to prescribe Serono medicines disguised as education.
The Authority asked Serono to respond in relation to Clauses 2, 18.1 and 19.1 (2006 Code) (and 2003 Code if meetings were pre-1 May 2006).
Serono stated sponsorship requests came via various channels; prescribers and non-prescribers were supported on a first-come, first-served basis; and sponsorship did not correlate with business from the institution.
Serono provided data on ESHRE sponsorship across 2004–2006 and cost breakdowns for other scientific meetings (including an explanation of cost differences driven by late flight bookings).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel found no evidence that the level of hospitality or the criteria for selecting delegates was inappropriate in relation to the Code requirements.
No breach of Clauses 18.1, 19.1 and 2 was ruled.

🔒

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