Sanofi-Aventis: HSJ ‘special report’ found to be disguised promotion for dronedarone (Clause 12.1)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case

AUTH/2373/11/10
Parties	Doctor v Sanofi-Aventis
Material	Four-page ‘special report’ on atrial fibrillation in Health Service Journal (HSJ)
Publication date	25 November 2010
Pages	17–20
Medicine mentioned	Dronedarone (Multaq)
Core issue	Sponsored content resembled independent editorial; company/agency influence meant it was disguised promotion
Applicable Code year	2008
Breach clauses	Clause 12.1
Complaint received	29 November 2010
Case completed	08 March 2011
Appeal	No appeal
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 four-page ‘special report’ on atrial fibrillation published in the Health Service Journal (HSJ) (25 November 2010, pages 17–20).
The report carried a prominent Sanofi-Aventis logo and stated: “This special report is paid for and sponsored by Sanofi-Aventis. Sanofi-Aventis have had no editorial input”.
The complainant alleged the piece was promotional because Sanofi-Aventis’ new medicine dronedarone (Multaq) was favourably mentioned multiple times and the report’s design closely matched HSJ editorial content.
The complainant argued a reader could view pages 18–20 without realising Sanofi-Aventis had secured/arranged the publication.
Sanofi-Aventis said the report was an HSJ educational feature, written by an HSJ employee, with no editorial input from Sanofi-Aventis; it said it only had the opportunity to check for factual inaccuracies and did not use the article for promotion.
The Panel found the report was initiated following discussions between HSJ and Sanofi-Aventis’ communications agency; the agency facilitated contact with experts and an email referenced working with HSJ to produce the report and listed key topics.
The HSJ front cover listed the special report like other articles, with no reference to Sanofi-Aventis’ involvement.
The Panel considered the balance of the report favoured dronedarone and that Sanofi-Aventis (via its agency) influenced scope/content such that the arrangement was not strictly arm’s length.

⚖️

⌄

Breach ruled: the report was considered disguised promotional material and not easily distinguished from independent editorial content.
Sanofi-Aventis was found “inextricably linked” to the production of the report.
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