AUTH/2139/7/08: Consultant rheumatologist v Roche – RCP-sponsored rheumatology webcast (no breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2139/7/08
Case reference	Consultant rheumatologist v Roche
Complainant	Consultant rheumatologist
Respondent/company	Roche Products Limited
Product(s)	MabThera (rituximab); abatacept; infliximab; etanercept
Material/channel	Internet webcast/online meeting (RCPLive) and promotional flyer distributed by representatives
Key issue	Whether Roche’s sponsorship and promotion of an RCP webcast effectively promoted rituximab and whether Roche inappropriately influenced content / was misleading about sponsorship
Dates (received/completed if stated)	Complaint received 8 July 2008; case completed 25 September 2008
Appeal	Not stated
Code year	2006 Code (clauses considered); case considered under 2008 Constitution and Procedure
Breaches/clauses	No breach of Clauses 2, 7.2, 9.1 and 19
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 consultant rheumatologist complained about a meeting broadcast on the Internet from the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) on 19 June, sponsored by Roche Products Limited.
The complainant queried Roche’s role in the sponsorship and the RCP’s handling of enquiries about payment/sponsorship arrangements.
The meeting topic was what to do with patients with inflammatory arthritis who had failed anti-TNF therapy; options presented included switching to abatacept or rituximab (Roche’s MabThera).
The complainant alleged that because abatacept had not been approved by NICE and was effectively unavailable in the UK, the speakers were only promoting rituximab; she also alleged other clinical options (eg changing/switching medicines) were not mentioned.
Roche stated it was approached by a third party on behalf of the RCP to sponsor the lecture; Roche could suggest topics/speakers but the RCP had final approval and Roche must not contact speakers or discuss programme content.
Roche’s representatives promoted the webcast using an RCP-approved flyer with RCP and Roche logos and the statement “Sponsored by an educational grant from Roche Products Limited”; representatives were briefed to encourage customers to view live or archived over 12 months.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel considered that using representatives to distribute flyers brought the webcast within the scope of the Code.
The Panel noted sponsorship was obvious on the flyer and at the outset of the webcast.
Although the Panel had some concerns (the topic was relevant to MabThera and the webcast included favourable statements about rituximab, and the Chairman referred to rituximab in summing up), it did not consider the sponsorship arrangements unreasonable.
The Panel concluded the RCP had final approval of programme and speakers and Roche’s involvement was not inappropriate as alleged.
No breach of the Code 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