AstraZeneca Arimidex mailing: magnetic “word” enclosure ruled a promotional aid and demeaning (AUTH/2196/1/09)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2196/1/09
Complainant	An anonymous and uncontactable oncologist
Company	AstraZeneca UK Limited
Product	Arimidex (anastrozole)
Material	Promotional mailing with leaflet and detachable magnetic words enclosure
Main issue	Magnetic words deemed a promotional aid, not professionally relevant, and demeaning/gimmicky
Complaint received	05 January 2009
Case completed	09 February 2009
Applicable Code year	2008
Breach clauses	9.1, 18.1 and 18.2
No breach	Clause 2
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated

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 anonymous, uncontactable oncologist complained about a promotional mailing for Arimidex (anastrozole) sent by AstraZeneca UK Limited (mailer ref C15822).
The mailing included a leaflet about the difficulty of telling patients their breast cancer had recurred.
Enclosed was a separate sheet of detachable magnetic words (eg “lump”, “spread”, “bad”, “news”, “sorry”, “cancer”) that could be arranged into sentences.
The complainant considered the magnets insensitive and in extremely poor taste, and was concerned they appeared to suggest using magnets to “spell out” bad news to patients.
The complainant also queried why the mailing was sent to his home address.
AstraZeneca said the magnets were intended to “grab attention and stimulate reflection”, not to be used with patients, and were not intended as a gift or promotional aid.
AstraZeneca said the mailing went to over 2,000 appropriate health professionals via an agency/database and that the recipient would have had to confirm a preference for home address use for certain materials.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 18.2 (promotional aid not relevant to the practice of the recipient’s profession).
Breach of Clause 18.1 (as a consequence of the Clause 18.2 breach).
Breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards not maintained; magnets viewed as a gimmick and demeaning to the role of the health professional).
No breach of Clause 2 (Panel did not consider the item brought discredit upon or reduced confidence in the industry; Clause 2 reserved for particular censure).
The Panel did not consider the home-address point to be a complaint under the Code; noted the recipient could request removal from the mailing list, but anonymity/non-contactability prevented further action.

🔒

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