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)
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 amounted to inappropriate influence/promotion and whether sponsorship disclosure was misleading
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 sponsoring a webcast about managing inflammatory arthritis patients who had failed anti-TNF therapy, and was dissatisfied with the RCP’s replies about Roche’s involvement and any payment to the RCP.
The complainant alleged the options presented were switching to abatacept or rituximab (MabThera), and because abatacept had not been approved by NICE (and was effectively unavailable in the UK), the speakers were only promoting rituximab; she also said 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, Roche did not select speakers, did not see presentations, and was contractually prohibited from contacting speakers or discussing programme content.
Roche representatives promoted the webcast using an RCP-approved flyer carrying both 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 the next 12 months.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel considered that using representatives to distribute flyers brought the webcast within the scope of the Code.
The Panel noted concerns that the topic was relevant to MabThera and that favourable statements about rituximab were made, including a specific reference to rituximab in the Chairman’s summing up.
Nonetheless, the Panel did not consider the sponsorship arrangements unreasonable: the RCP had final approval of the programme and speakers, and Roche was prohibited from influencing content.
The Panel ruled Roche’s involvement was not inappropriate as alleged; the sponsorship was clear and not misleading; 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