← Back to Cases
PMCPA Case

Ferring: PR agency sent unapproved, misleading Firmagon copy to a patient organisation (AUTH/2257/8/09)

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

⌄
Case numberAUTH/2257/8/09
CompanyFerring Pharmaceuticals Ltd
ProductFirmagon (degarelix)
Indication (as stated)Treatment of advanced prostate cancer
IssuePR agency sent uncertified, edited (unapproved) copy to a patient organisation; misleading/imbalanced content and lack of transparency
Complaint received07 August 2009
Case completed17 September 2009
Applicable Code year2008
Breach clauses2, 9.1, 14.3, 22.2 and 23.6
SanctionsUndertaking received; Advertisement
AppealNo appeal

Download the full case report (PDF)

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
📋

What happened

⌄
  • Ferring voluntarily admitted its PR agency sent unapproved (uncertified) edited copy about Firmagon (degarelix) to a patient organisation.
  • The PR agency was given an approved press release for external distribution, but then (without Ferring’s prior approval) emailed an edited version that the patient organisation used to create website content.
  • The edited copy omitted key information (including side effects and references) and changed the balance of the message.
  • Edits included: adding “(and longer)” to a statement about how long LHRH agonists take to reduce testosterone; adding “Ask your doctor for more information about FIRMAGON”; and changing wording about Ferring’s role (from holding the marketing authorisation to “make FIRMAGON”).
  • The patient organisation’s homepage linked to “DEGARELIX (Firmagon)… and how to order your free DVD”, creating an unsatisfactory juxtaposition between product information and a DVD offer.
  • Ferring said it only discovered the issue after being informed during a competitor’s investigation; an internal recipient was blind-copied but did not open the attachment during launch week.
  • Ferring asked the patient organisation to amend the website; changes were made over time, with a further revision later that day on 24 July to address all concerns.
  • The Panel noted emails gave the impression that publication of Firmagon copy and the DVD offer were part of the launch strategy, including reference to measuring website hits.
⚖️

Outcome

⌄
  • The PMCPA treated the voluntary admission as a complaint due to potential seriousness.
  • Breaches were ruled for Clause 2, 9.1, 14.3, 22.2 and 23.6.
  • The Panel expressed strong concern about omitted safety information, misleading edits, lack of balance, and lack of transparency about the company’s role.
  • The Panel also queried whether the homepage “box” linking to Firmagon information could amount to advertising a POM to the public (Clause 22.1), but this was not part of the ruled breaches listed for the case.
  • No appeal.
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value
£249/year
Annual — save £99
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access
← All Cases Book a Free Compliance Call

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free