Roche & Chugai: HSJ sponsored supplement stapled into journal was deemed disguised (Clause 12.1)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2287/12/09 & AUTH/2288/12/09
Parties	Doctor v Roche Products Ltd and Chugai Pharma Europe Ltd
Material	12-page supplement: “Rheumatoid arthritis – from policy to action” (ref ACTE00150W)
Publication / date	Health Service Journal (HSJ), 10 December 2009
Product mentioned	RoActemara (tocilizumab) advertisement on back cover
Main issue	Whether sponsored supplement resembled editorial matter / was disguised when stapled into HSJ
Applicable Code year	2008
Complaint received	15 December 2009
Case completed	25 March 2010
Panel decision	No breach of Clause 12.1
Appeal outcome	Appeal successful; breach of Clause 12.1 ruled
Breach clause(s)	Clause 12.1
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

🎬 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 12-page rheumatology supplement, “Rheumatoid arthritis – from policy to action”, distributed with the Health Service Journal (HSJ) on 10 December 2009.
The supplement’s back cover carried an advertisement for RoActemara (tocilizumab), co-promoted by Roche Products Ltd and Chugai Pharma Europe Ltd.
The supplement stated Roche and Chugai sponsored its development and distribution, checked it for factual accuracy, and paid the author via the journal.
The complainant alleged the supplement was stapled inside HSJ and was indistinguishable from independent editorial content, so readers could miss sponsorship declarations and not realise it was promotional material.
Roche/Chugai said they were verbally informed by their communications agency it would be a separate (loose) item; instead it was stapled into the journal.

⚖️

⌄

Panel: No breach of Clause 12.1 (it considered the supplement distinguishable due to layout differences and clear sponsorship declarations on the front/inside front cover).
Appeal Board (appeal successful): Breach of Clause 12.1 ruled because stapling into the journal meant readers could encounter inside pages without seeing sponsorship declarations, and the inside pages were not sufficiently dissimilar to HSJ editorial text so their nature was disguised.

🔒

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