AUTH/2454/11/11: Pharmacist v Celgene — advisory board honoraria alleged as disguised promotion (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2454/11/11
Complainant	Regional cancer hospital pharmacist
Company	Celgene Limited
Medicine	Vidaza (azacitidine)
Therapy area / indication mentioned	Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (CMML) or acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) (as described in case)
Allegation	Inappropriate promotional activity / disguised promotion via advisory panels and honoraria; potential inducement concerns
Honorarium referenced	£600 (Vidaza advisory board); £500 (separate October network pharmacists advisory board)
Authority asked company to respond under	Clauses 2, 9.1, 12.1, 18.1 and 20.1
Panel decision	No breach of the Code
Applicable Code year	2011
Complaint received	7 November 2011
Case completed	20 December 2011
Appeal	No appeal
Meeting details (Vidaza advisory board)	Held November 2011 (14 November stated); attended by four clinicians, one pharmacist, three Celgene employees; chaired by an external clinician; no Celgene presentations 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 regional cancer hospital pharmacist complained about Celgene’s activities relating to Vidaza (azacitidine) in myelodysplasia, alleging inappropriate promotional activity.
The complainant said they were invited (around Aug 2011) to an advisory panel meeting around the time of the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) submission/publication, with travel plus a £600 honorarium.
The complainant believed other pharmacists were approached and that there were multiple similar meetings (including one just before the British Oncology Pharmacy Association (BOPA) conference), again with a £600 honorarium.
The complainant had not attended the meetings but had seen an agenda which, in their view, did not look like a genuine review panel.
Celgene stated there was only one Vidaza-related advisory board in Scotland; the date changed so two invitations were sent. The meeting was held 14 November 2011 and attended by four clinicians (including the chair), one pharmacist and three Celgene employees.
Celgene said the meeting was chaired by an external clinician, had stated objectives, required background reading/preparation, and included no presentations by Celgene attendees (who were present to answer questions/clarify).
Celgene also described a separate October 2011 network pharmacists advisory board (not about azacitidine) held before BOPA, with a £500 honorarium.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel did not consider the Vidaza advisory board (or its arrangements/documentation) to be disguised promotion.
The Panel considered the £600 fee reflected preparation time and participation, and was reasonable for genuine consultancy services.
The Panel noted the invitation should have referred to the preparation work required by attendees (commentary point), but this did not lead to a breach.

🔒

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