Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim: journal insert presented as sponsored supplement found to be disguised promotion (AUTH/2213/3/09, AUTH/2214/3/09)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2213/3/09 and AUTH/2214/3/09
Case reference	Anonymous doctor v Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim
Complainant	Anonymous doctor
Respondent/company	Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim
Product(s)	Cymbalta (duloxetine); Zyprexa (olanzapine)
Material/channel	Journal insert/supplement distributed with Progress in Neurology and Psychiatry (Vol 13, Issue 1, 2009), reporting a “2008 UK Psychiatry Forum” symposium
Key issue	Insert presented as a sponsored journal supplement but found to be proceedings of a company-run promotional symposium; ruled disguised promotion and discredit to the industry
Dates (received/completed if stated)	Complaint received: 11 March 2009; Completed: AUTH/2213/3/09 on 20 April 2009; AUTH/2214/3/09 on 14 April 2009
Appeal	Not stated
Code year	Not stated
Breaches/clauses	Breach of Clause 12.1; No breach of Clause 3.2; 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 anonymous doctor complained about a journal supplement distributed with Progress in Neurology and Psychiatry (volume 13, issue 1, 2009), described as “A Progress supplement sponsored by Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim” and as a report from the “2008 UK Psychiatry Forum”.
The supplement was produced to look like the journal; the complainant said the sponsorship statement was small/easily missed and that the presentation implied the UK Psychiatry Forum had significant standing.
The complainant alleged the report misrepresented the event and amounted to disguised promotion; prescribing information for Cymbalta (duloxetine) and Zyprexa (olanzapine) appeared in the supplement.
The complainant also alleged off-licence promotion for Cymbalta in relation to “atypical depression”.
The Panel found the material was proceedings of a promotional symposium run by Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim during the ECNP congress: 90 delegates were sponsored by the companies to attend ECNP; speakers were chosen by the companies; titles were mutually agreed; the companies derived the concept, paid for production/distribution, reviewed final papers for Code compliance, and certified the material.
The Panel concluded there was no strictly arm’s length arrangement and the companies were wholly responsible for the meeting and its output.

⚖️

⌄

Disguised promotion: upheld. The Panel ruled the insert was not merely a sponsored supplement but a paid-for insert detailing proceedings of a company meeting; the sponsorship statement and “UK Psychiatry Forum” reference disguised its promotional nature. Breach ruled.
Off-licence promotion (Cymbalta for atypical depression): not upheld. The Panel considered the insert did not promote Cymbalta for an unlicensed indication. No breach ruled.
Discredit to the industry: upheld. The Panel ruled the presentation reduced confidence in and brought discredit upon the pharmaceutical industry. Breach of Clause 2 ruled.

📖

⌄

Clause 12.1: Breach ruled (material found to be disguised promotion / misleading presentation of a company-run promotional meeting as an independent journal supplement).
Clause 3.2: No breach ruled (Panel did not consider Cymbalta was promoted for an unlicensed indication in relation to atypical major depressive disorder).
Clause 2: Breach ruled (material’s description/presentation reduced confidence in and brought discredit upon the pharmaceutical 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