AUTH/2055/10/07: UCB Pharma advertorial in The Times Parkinson’s supplement promoted POMs to the public

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2055/10/07
Company	UCB Pharma Ltd
Case type	Voluntary admission (treated as a complaint)
Issue	Promotion/advertising of prescription only medicines to the public via an advertorial-style advertisement in a Parkinson’s Disease supplement distributed with The Times
Medicines named	Keppra (levetiracetam); Neupro (rotigotine)
Channel/audience	The Times supplement; general public (“Times readers”)
Complaint received	08 October 2007
Case completed	03 December 2007
Applicable Code year	2006
Breach clauses	Clause 2, Clause 9.1, Clause 20.1, Clause 20.2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Advertisement
Appeal	No appeal
Notable contributing factors	Material released without approval/certification; reviewed outside formal process; assumptions it was a press release; payment for placement not disclosed to reviewers; merger/integration context and weak oversight

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

📋

⌄

UCB voluntarily admitted it had placed an advertisement/advertorial in a Parkinson’s Disease supplement distributed with The Times (7 September 2007) that referred to Keppra (levetiracetam) and Neupro (rotigotine), both prescription only medicines (POMs).
The issue was brought to UCB’s attention by GlaxoSmithKline.
UCB media relations were invited to contribute content; because UCB was acquiring Schwarz Pharma (manufacturer of Neupro), the enquiry/draft copy was referred to a Schwarz brand manager.
Copy and layout were amended across departments, but the material was reviewed outside the formal approvals process and was assumed to be a corporate press release.
The article was released to the media agency without final approval/certification (29 August) and contained two brand names.
UCB paid a media agency for the advertisement and a front page corporate banner; there was no direct contact between UCB and The Times.
The brand manager did not tell reviewers that payment was being made for inclusion in the supplement and did not appreciate that paid placement meant it should be treated as an advertisement.
The Panel found widespread poor understanding and weak internal challenge/oversight, including that the material was seen by multiple functions and the managing director.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled the advertorial promoted Keppra and Neupro to the public: breach of Clause 20.1.
The Panel ruled it would encourage members of the public to ask health professionals to prescribe a specific POM: breach of Clause 20.2.
The Panel ruled the process showed lack of control/poor knowledge and failure to maintain high standards: breach of Clause 9.1.
The Panel ruled the conduct brought discredit upon and reduced confidence in the industry: breach of Clause 2.
No appeal.

🔒

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