AUTH/2534/10/12: Anonymous v Roche – Alleged pressure and inducements linked to rheumatoid arthritis project (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2534/10/12
Parties	Anonymous v Roche Products Limited
Allegation	Pressure on a hospital employee to continue an RA project; provision of drinks and money (alleged inducements)
Therapy area / topic	Rheumatoid arthritis; remission/low disease activity vs non-remission/high disease activity cost model
Complainant status	Anonymous, non-contactable; appeared to work within a named hospital group
Company response (high level)	No evidence of pressure or inducements; internal system searches found no agreements/hospitality/sponsorship/expenses; pharmacist confirmed no pressure and no inducements
Clauses considered	Clauses 2, 9.1, 18.1, 19.1
Panel decision	No breach of Clauses 2, 9.1, 18.1 and 19.1
Complaint received	12 October 2012
Case completed	5 December 2012
Applicable Code year	2012
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	None

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

🎬 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

📋

What happened

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant alleged Roche pressured a named hospital employee (a pharmacist) to continue a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remission data analysis project after a hospital group declined to participate.
The complainant also alleged Roche provided “drinks and money” and that this “was not right”, naming a Roche employee as responsible.
The PMCPA asked Roche to respond to Clause 2 (as cited) and also Clauses 9.1, 18.1 and 19.1.
Roche stated it had worked (July–September 2012) with the pharmacist’s external business to develop a model assessing cost of remission/low disease activity vs non-remission/high disease activity in RA; the project was led by a temporary contract employee who left at end of September.
Roche said the pharmacist questioned Roche’s policy that contracts/payments with health professionals must be with and by Roche directly (to enable reporting of payments made by Roche and third parties on its behalf). Roche insisted its process be followed.
Roche said the health professionals chose not to participate once they understood the work was for/on behalf of a pharmaceutical company; the project was not progressed.
Roche said the named Roche employee’s only interaction was a teleconference on 19 September; the employee denied any meeting, pressure, or offering drinks/money.
Roche searched internal systems (agreements, meetings/hospitality approvals, sponsorship requests, expenses) and found no evidence of agreements, hospitality, sponsorship, or relevant expenses linked to the pharmacist or his company.
Roche contacted the pharmacist, who confirmed no pressure and no inducements; discussions were via his company and no drinks/other inducements were offered or accepted.

⚖️

Outcome

⌄

The Panel noted the complainant bore the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities and had provided no supporting material.
The Panel could not obtain more information because the complainant was non-contactable.
Based on the evidence before it (including Roche’s investigation and the pharmacist’s confirmation), the Panel ruled no breach of the Code.
No breaches were found of Clauses 18.1 and 19.1; consequently, no breach of Clauses 9.1 and 2.

🔒

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

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access

AUTH/2534/10/12: Anonymous v Roche – Alleged pressure and inducements linked to rheumatoid arthritis project (No breach)

Key facts

What happened

Outcome

Clauses

Unlock the full case analysis

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown