AUTH/2159/8/08 and AUTH/2166/9/08: Anonymous v Bristol-Myers Squibb and Otsuka (alleged inappropriate hospitality)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2159/8/08 and AUTH/2166/9/08
Case reference	Anonymous v Bristol-Myers Squibb and Otsuka
Complainant	Anonymous (uncontactable)
Respondent/company	Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Limited; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals (UK) Limited
Product(s)	Aripiprazole (mentioned by complainants)
Material/channel	Sponsorship and hospitality for a two-day meeting (International Seminar on Psychiatry) at a hotel near Birmingham airport; invitation/registration form and programme
Key issue	Alleged inappropriate hospitality and questions about the scientific nature of the meeting and relationships with doctors
Dates (received/completed if stated)	Complaint received: 8 August 2008; Case completed: 9 September 2008
Appeal	Not stated
Code year	2006
Breaches/clauses	Clauses 2, 9.1, 19.1 considered; no breach ruled
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

📋

⌄

Anonymous complainants alleged Bristol-Myers Squibb provided inappropriate hospitality at a two-day meeting for psychiatrists, including food, hotels and an alleged cultural programme.
It was alleged the meeting lacked features typical of scientific conferences (eg, no scientific committee; abstracts not invited/selected) and questioned whether there was a special relationship between doctors and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
The complaint was initially taken up with Bristol-Myers Squibb; the company submitted a joint response with Otsuka because both companies sponsored the meeting.
The meeting was an International Seminar on Psychiatry organised by the Midlands Psychiatric Research Group; sponsorship included company-supported international speakers and payment of hotel accommodation and hospitality as stated in the programme.
The Panel reviewed the programme and cost information, including the scientific schedule across Friday and Saturday and the declared sponsorship/hospitality.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled that the scientific/educational content was not unreasonable for pharmaceutical company sponsorship.
The Panel found there was no cultural programme as alleged.
The Panel concluded the prime purpose of the meeting was scientific/educational.
The Panel concluded the costs involved had not exceeded those which delegates might normally adopt when paying for themselves.
No breach of the Code was ruled in relation to Clauses 2, 9.1 and 19.1.

🔒

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