Teva found in breach for disguised promotion via sponsored “Guidelines in Practice” supplement (AUTH/2081/1/08)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2081/1/08
Case reference	HDM/07/047
Complainant	Primary Care Trust (PCT) pharmacist
Respondent/company	Teva UK Ltd
Product(s)	Qvar; Clenil Modulite (mentioned as alternative)
Material/channel	Supplement sent in association with the electronic edition of Guidelines in Practice (paid distribution)
Key issue	Disguised promotion: supplement appeared independent but was effectively a paid-for promotional insert for Qvar; “unrestricted educational grant” statement did not fairly reflect arrangements
Dates (received/completed if stated)	Complaint received 18 January 2008; Case completed 21 February 2008
Appeal	Not stated
Code year	Not stated
Breaches/clauses	Clause 10.1
Sanctions	No explicit additional sanctions stated beyond the required undertaking/corrective actions described in the report

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

📋

⌄

A pharmacist at a Primary Care Trust (PCT) complained about a supplement sent with the electronic edition of Guidelines in Practice, titled “Making an informed choice A guide to changing to CFC-free beclometasone inhalers”.
The supplement stated on the front cover that it was “Supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Teva UK Ltd”.
Prescribing information for Qvar (CFC-free beclometasone dipropionate (BDP)) appeared on the inside back page.
The complainant alleged the supplement was effectively an advertisement for Qvar, presented under the guise of an informed, independent prescribing guideline; they also noted only Qvar prescribing information was included (not Clenil Modulite).
Teva said the article was written by the named author (a programme director, medicines management, at a PCT) engaged by Teva’s agency; Teva said it did not create the article beyond agreeing the initial brief, but it did require the material to go through Teva’s approval process prior to publication.
Teva paid a fee for distribution of the supplement with Guidelines in Practice.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel found Teva was “inextricably linked” to the production and distribution of the supplement.
The Panel concluded there was no arm’s length arrangement between sponsorship and creation of the supplement.
The Panel considered the supplement was, in effect, a paid-for insert promoting Qvar.
The Panel ruled the material was disguised promotion because it appeared independent of Teva when it was not; the “unrestricted educational grant” statement did not fairly reflect the actual arrangements.
Breach of Clause 10.1 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