AUTH/2572/1/13: Ex-employee v AstraZeneca – Seroquel investor presentations and weight-gain claims (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2572/1/13
Company	AstraZeneca
Complainant	Ex-employee
Product	Seroquel (quetiapine)
Material	Five archived investor presentations on AstraZeneca.com (dated 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2006)
Main issue	Whether weight-related statements were a fair and balanced reflection of evidence available at the time
Applicable Code year	2012
Clause(s) considered	7.2
Panel decision	No breach of Clause 7.2
Appeal	Yes (by complainant); unsuccessful
Complaint received	15 January 2013
Case completed	26 June 2013

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 ex-employee complained about AstraZeneca’s promotion of Seroquel (quetiapine), citing five presentations (dated 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2006) hosted in the archived investor materials section of AstraZeneca’s website.
The complainant challenged AstraZeneca’s prior statement (made in correspondence in an earlier case) that the company’s statements about Seroquel and weight “evolved as a balanced and fair reflection of the evidence available at the time”.
The complainant alleged the presentations showed AstraZeneca “spreading false claims” about Seroquel’s effect on body weight, and referenced a CBS news item and multiple blog links by a retired US psychiatrist.
The case ultimately proceeded as an alleged breach of Clause 7.2 (balance, fairness, objectivity) under the 2012 Code.
The Panel noted the complaint was general and did not clearly identify specific slides/claims with a concise explanation of why each was unbalanced versus the evidence available at the time.
On appeal, the Appeal Board noted the specific weight-related claims in the presentations: “Seroquel - minimal weight gain” (1999); “weight neutral in the long term” (2001); “Weight-neutral long-term” / “weight-neutral in the long term” (2002); “Favourable weight profile long-term” (2004); “Less weight gain than with olanzapine” (2006).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 7.2 ruled by the Panel.
The complainant appealed; the Appeal Board upheld the Panel’s ruling of no breach.
The Appeal Board considered there was insufficient evidence from the complainant to show the presentations were not a fair and balanced reflection of the evidence available at the time.

🔒

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