Roche: Paid-for magazine “article” seen as public advertising for Herceptin and Avastin (AUTH/2098/2/08)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2098/2/08
Company	Roche Products Limited
Applicable Code year	2006
Complaint received	19 February 2008
Case completed	20 March 2008
Appeal	No appeal
Channel/material	One-page paid-for “article” facing a corporate ad in In The Pink (consumer magazine)
Products mentioned	Herceptin (trastuzumab); Avastin (bevacizumab) (also press releases sent on Bondronat and Xeloda)
Audience/distribution	Consumer publication; potential circulation ~75,000; sold in supermarkets/newsagents; available ~6 weeks (Sept/Oct 2007)
Breach clauses	2, 9.1, 20.1, 20.2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: 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

📋

⌄

Following inter-company dialogue (and a complaint from GlaxoSmithKline UK Limited), Roche voluntarily admitted that a one-page piece placed in the 2007 edition of In The Pink magazine promoted prescription only medicines (POMs) to the public.
The magazine was an annual consumer publication for Breast Cancer Awareness Month, sold in supermarkets/newsagents, available for around six weeks (Sept/Oct 2007), with a potential circulation of about 75,000.
Roche bought a package offered by the publisher: a full-page corporate advertisement plus a facing page “article”. The Panel considered these should have been treated as a single corporate package from the outset.
Roche provided press releases/backgrounders (including a “targeted therapies” backgrounder) to the publisher; Roche said it did not see the final article before print.
The published facing page carried the heading “Pioneering an era of unprecedented benefit for women with breast cancer” and referred to Herceptin (trastuzumab) and Avastin (bevacizumab), describing benefits including “unprecedented” progression free survival.
The Panel concluded the “article” was not independent: Roche had paid for the space and provided the information, so Roche was responsible under the Code.
Roche’s corporate advertisement page (“Roche oncology working together to fight cancer”) was said by Roche to have been certified and compliant, but the facing page was treated as an advertisement for POMs to the public.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found: the paid-for page was an advertisement for Herceptin and Avastin to the public (Clause 20.1).
Breach found: the content encouraged members of the public to ask health professionals to prescribe specific POMs (Clause 20.2).
Breach found: lack of control/poor knowledge of Code requirements; high standards not maintained (Clause 9.1).
Breach found: failure to exercise due diligence; conduct brought discredit upon and reduced confidence in the industry (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