AUTH/2611/6/13: Anonymous renal nurse v Janssen (Durogesic branded pens in conference delegate bags)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2611/6/13
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable renal nurse
Company	Janssen
Product	Durogesic DTrans (fentanyl transdermal patch)
Allegation	Durogesic branded pens included in delegate bags at BRS Meeting (Manchester, 14–16 May 2013)
Material at issue	Branded pens (promotional aid)
Relevant history	Pens last ordered (per recollection) in 2007; donated to BRS in March 2010; stored and later used by BRS in 2013
Quantity	Approximately 5,000 pens (per appeal hearing)
Clause(s) considered	Clause 18.3
Panel decision	Breach of Clause 18.3
Appeal outcome	No breach of Clause 18.3 (appeal successful)
Complaint received	17 June 2013
Case completed	11 September 2013
Applicable Code year	2012

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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable renal nurse complained that Durogesic DTrans (fentanyl transdermal patch) branded pens were included in delegate bags at the British Royal Society (BRS) Meeting in Manchester (14–16 May 2013).
Janssen said the pens were last ordered in 2007 and an unspecified quantity was donated to BRS in March 2010 after BRS requested practical support from industry.
Janssen stated there was no promotional intent and that Durogesic DTrans was not routinely used in renal medicine.
Janssen said it first learned the pens were in delegate bags on 16 May 2013 (alerted by another company) and that BRS had acted without Janssen’s knowledge or permission.
BRS confirmed in writing (18 June 2013) that it had stored the pens and decided to put them in 2013 delegate bags rather than discard them, and that Janssen was not party to that decision.
Janssen had an exhibition stand at the meeting promoting Eprex (epoetin alfa) and said it did not provide pens or other promotional items at the stand.

⚖️

⌄

Panel (first instance): ruled a breach of Clause 18.3 because branded pens were no longer acceptable promotional aids under the Code.
Appeal Board: overturned the Panel’s ruling and found no breach of Clause 18.3 (appeal successful).
The Appeal Board considered the 2011 prohibition on branded pens was not retrospective and, on balance, it was not unreasonable for Janssen to assume the pens would be redistributed by BRS within a reasonable period (i.e., before the end of the transition period).

🔒

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