AUTH/2571/12/12: Anonymous health professional v Pharmacosmos (symposium invitation) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2571/12/12
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable health professional
Company	Pharmacosmos
Material	Double-sided A5 symposium invitation flyer
Event	Pharmacosmos symposium at the 8th ECCO Congress (European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation), Vienna, 14–16 February 2013
Key wording at issue	“Can we optimize treatment with single high dose intravenous iron in IBD patients? – New data from clinical trials”
Products mentioned in case background	Monofer; CosmoFer (not named on the flyer)
Complaint theme	Concern about discussing/promoting “new” (potentially unpublished/unlicensed) data
Applicable Code year	2012
Clauses considered	2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 9.1
Panel decision	No breach (flyer not promotional; no PI required)
Complaint received	20 December 2012
Case completed	6 February 2013
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant (self-described health professional) complained about a double-sided A5 invitation to a Pharmacosmos symposium at the 8th ECCO Congress (Vienna, February 2013).
The invitation headline/topic was: “Can we optimize treatment with single high dose intravenous iron in IBD patients? – New data from clinical trials”.
The complainant believed “new” data could not be discussed or promoted until published and licensed.
Pharmacosmos marketed Monofer (iron (III) isomaltoside 100) and CosmoFer (iron dextran), both for IV treatment of iron deficiency; both could be administered as total dose infusions (CosmoFer in limited circumstances).
Pharmacosmos said the flyer was intended to inform conference attendees about a scientific symposium, did not name a product, and was intended for physicians attending ECCO (though it appeared on a hospital noticeboard).
The Panel assessed only the content of the flyer and first determined whether it was promotional.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code.
The Panel decided the flyer did not directly or indirectly refer to Monofer or CosmoFer and therefore was not promotional.
Because it was not promotional, the requirement to include prescribing information did not apply.
No breach was ruled for Clauses 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 9.1 and 2.

🔒

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