AstraZeneca voluntary admission: internal email linked AUA sponsorship to protecting/growing Zoladex business (AUTH/2229/5/09)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2229/5/09
Company	AstraZeneca UK Limited
Product	Zoladex (goserelin)
Issue	Internal email implied AUA meeting sponsorship/delegate selection was linked to protecting and growing Zoladex business; email forwarded to a doctor/potential delegate
Meeting	American Urological Association (AUA) meeting (US)
Complaint received	06 May 2009
Case completed	12 June 2009
Applicable Code year	2008
Breach clauses	9.1, 15.9, 18.1
No breach	Clause 2
Sanction	Undertaking received
Appeal	No appeal

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

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

AstraZeneca made a voluntary admission about an internal email sent to representatives about inviting customers to attend the American Urological Association (AUA) meeting in the US.
The email stated that “the directors felt that taking your customers to the AUA… would help protect our Zoladex business and in many cases help grow it”, implying sponsorship was linked to past/future prescribing of Zoladex (goserelin).
The email referred to a directors’ meeting that had not taken place; directors were not involved in delegate selection.
The email was certified by two registered signatories who did not validate the statements or question the nature of delegate selection.
One representative forwarded the whole email to a doctor/potential delegate (despite no instruction to do so).
AstraZeneca’s internal investigation stated the brand team’s selection criteria included therapeutic relevance (prostate cancer) and interest in developments, but also included interest in an evening session to share AstraZeneca survival data; AstraZeneca ensured that evening meeting did not take place.
The matter was escalated via AstraZeneca’s internal reporting system and treated as a complaint due to the potentially serious nature of linking sponsorship to prescribing.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 15.9 ruled (briefing material indirectly advocated a course of action likely to lead to a breach by linking sponsorship to protecting/growing Zoladex business).
Breach of Clause 18.1 ruled (provision of the email to a health professional amounted to an inducement to prescribe).
Breach of Clause 9.1 ruled (high standards had not been maintained; lack of awareness of Code requirements).
No breach of Clause 2 ruled (Panel did not consider the matter warranted particular censure under Clause 2).
No appeal.

🔒

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