AUTH/2055/10/07: UCB Pharma advertorial in The Times supplement promoted POMs to the public (Keppra, Neupro)

📊

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 a paid advertorial in a Parkinson’s Disease supplement distributed with The Times
Medicines named	Keppra (levetiracetam); Neupro (rotigotine)
Channel	Parkinson’s Disease supplement distributed with The Times (advertorial style)
Key quoted text	“...a market-leading anti-epileptic drug (Keppra)... now includes Neupro, a transdermal patch for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease...”
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
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Advertisement

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

📋

⌄

UCB Pharma voluntarily alerted the PMCPA to an advertisement/advertorial placed 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 and draft copy were 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 final material was released to the media agency without final approval/certification and contained two brand names (Keppra and Neupro).
UCB paid a media agency for the advertisement and a front page corporate banner; there was no direct contact between UCB and The Times during the process.
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 rather than a press release.
The Panel noted multiple warning signs (email subject lines referencing “Advertising proposal” and “Advertorial”; approval form stating “Draft article for Times PD supplement”, product “Neupro”, audience “Times readers”) that should have triggered escalation.

⚖️

⌄

The voluntary admission was treated as a complaint because advertising POMs to the public is regarded as a serious matter.
The Panel ruled the advertorial promoted Keppra and Neupro to the public and therefore breached the Code.
The Panel also ruled that the advertorial would encourage members of the public to ask health professionals to prescribe a specific POM.
The Panel found a serious lack of understanding of the Code and poor control/due diligence across the organisation, including senior visibility (material was also seen by the managing director).

🔒

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