Bayer Schering Pharma: The Economist advertisement held to be promotion of a prescription-only medicine to the public

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2135/6/08
Case reference	2135 (Nov 2008)
Complainant	An anaesthetist
Respondent/company	Bayer Schering Pharma
Product(s)	Betaferon (interferon beta-1b)
Material/channel	Advertisement in The Economist (public-facing print media)
Key issue	Whether a corporate-style MS advertisement constituted promotion of a prescription-only medicine to the public and raised unfounded hopes
Dates (received/completed if stated)	Complaint received 23 June 2008; case completed 4 August 2008
Appeal	Not stated
Code year	Not stated
Breaches/clauses	Breach of Clauses 20.1, 20.2 and 9.1; no breach of Clause 2
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

📋

⌄

An anaesthetist complained about an advertisement placed in The Economist (week of 23 June) by Bayer Schering Pharma.
The advertisement was headed “Fighting Multiple Sclerosis” and included the Bayer corporate logo and the phrases “Science For A Better Life” and “Providing Hope”.
The text stated that Bayer had brought to market “the first therapy with long-term efficacy in significantly reducing the frequency of periods of exacerbation” in multiple sclerosis, and that it was investigating new therapies to give patients “a life full of hope for the future”.
Bayer Schering’s product Betaferon (interferon beta-1b) was indicated for treatment of certain types of multiple sclerosis.
The complainant alleged the advertisement referred to a medicine marketed by Bayer to treat MS and, although unnamed, provided enough information for a reader to request it from a doctor; this was alleged to be promotion of a medicine to the public.
The Authority asked Bayer Schering to respond in relation to Clauses 2, 9.1, 20.1 and 20.2.
Bayer Schering said it did not consider it appropriate to encourage the public to ask for a specific medicine and did not accept the advertisement did so; it described the piece as corporate promotion aimed at finance/politics readers and noted internal local and global certification procedures.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel considered The Economist was aimed at the public (not a health professional audience) and the advertisement therefore needed to comply with Clause 20.
The Panel found the advertisement was clearly about MS, referred to Bayer Schering’s treatment for MS, and included clinical claims; it was not simply corporate promotion.
The Panel ruled the advertisement encouraged patients to ask their doctor to prescribe a Bayer product that was prescription-only, and that “a life full of hope” raised unfounded hopes given MS was incurable.
Breach of Clause 20.2 was ruled.
On balance, the Panel considered the advertisement in effect constituted an advertisement for Betaferon to the public; breach of Clause 20.1 was ruled.
High standards had not been maintained; breach of Clause 9.1 was ruled.
No breach of Clause 2 was ruled because, taking all circumstances into account, the Panel did not consider the advertisement brought discredit on or reduced confidence in the pharmaceutical industry.

📖

⌄

Clause 20.2 – Breach (encouraged patients to ask their doctor to prescribe a prescription-only medicine; raised unfounded hopes).
Clause 20.1 – Breach (promotion/advertising of a prescription-only medicine to the public).
Clause 9.1 – Breach (high standards not maintained).
Clause 2 – No breach (Panel did not consider the advertisement brought discredit on or reduced confidence in the industry).

🔒

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