AUTH/2275/11/09: Doctor v GlaxoSmithKline (Journal supplement sponsorship declaration) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2275/11/09
Parties	Doctor v GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd
Material	Sponsored supplement: “ProState of the Nation Report. A call to action: delivering more effective care for BPH patients in the UK”
Channel/distribution	Distributed with Health Service Journal (22 Oct 2009); also referenced as a supplement to PULSE (21 Oct 2009); distributed at a House of Commons BPH awareness event (19 Oct 2009); planned distribution to NHS health professionals and budget holders by GSK representatives
Core allegation	Sponsorship declaration did not state Prostate UK received funding from GSK (alleged conflict of interest)
Company position	Sponsorship of the supplement was clearly declared; Prostate UK received no monies for the report; honoraria paid directly to individuals; unrelated Prostate UK sponsorships were transparently disclosed in their own materials
Applicable Code year	2008
Clause(s) considered	Clause 9.10
Panel decision	No breach
Complaint received	2 November 2009
Case completed	18 December 2009
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

📋

⌄

A doctor complained about a sponsored supplement: “ProState of the Nation Report. A call to action: delivering more effective care for BPH patients in the UK”, distributed with the Health Service Journal (22 Oct 2009) (and also referenced as distributed with PULSE).
The supplement included a foreword from the chief executive officer of the charity Prostate UK.
The complainant alleged the declaration of sponsorship was incomplete because it did not state that Prostate UK received funding from GlaxoSmithKline (beyond any honoraria to the CEO if she sat on the editorial board), creating an undisclosed conflict of interest.
GSK said it had been transparent: the front cover stated GSK sponsored production and directed readers to the back cover; the back cover described what the sponsorship included (medical writer, honoraria to editorial board, PR agency/project management).
GSK stated Prostate UK received no monies from GSK in respect of the report; honoraria were paid directly to individuals (including those holding roles at Prostate UK).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel held the declaration of sponsorship was sufficiently prominent and accurately reflected GSK’s involvement in producing the supplement.
The Panel stated the Code required declaration of sponsorship of the material itself, not unrelated “background relationships” between parties.
The Panel accepted that GSK’s unrelated sponsorship of other Prostate UK activities did not need to be declared in the report at issue.

🔒

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