AUTH/2725/7/14: Member of the public v Roche — Daily Mirror article about Avastin (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2725/7/14
Complainant	Anonymous, contactable member of the public
Company	Roche Products Limited
Product	Avastin (bevacizumab)
Channel	Daily Mirror (print and online)
Main allegation	Company-inspired mainstream media article amounting to off-label promotion to the public and brand promotion to non-prescribers
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 23.1, 23.2
Decision	No breach
Complaint received	30 July 2014
Case completed	15 October 2014
Appeal	No appeal
Applicable Code year	2014

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 but contactable member of the public complained about a Daily Mirror print/online article: “Young cancer patient forced to pay £2,000 a week for treatment drugs – after NHS refuses”.
The article referred to Avastin (bevacizumab), marketed by Roche, and discussed use for a brain tumour (glioblastoma/GBM), an indication not licensed in the EU/UK.
The complainant alleged the story was company-inspired/placed by Roche’s agents, amounted to off-label promotion to the public, promoted a brand name to non-prescribers, and implied improved/extended quality of life without supporting data.
The complainant alleged Roche sales force tipped off journalists and that a “paper trail” existed, but provided no documentation and did not respond to a request for further information.
Roche denied instigating/placing the story; stated it only responded reactively to a journalist enquiry, including stating Avastin was not licensed in the UK for brain tumours and (verbally) that it was licensed for GBM in Japan.
Roche described an internal investigation (compliance/HR-led) including interviews, CRM searches, and review of several thousand emails; it found no evidence of proactive media placement or tip-offs. Roche also obtained statements from its agencies denying involvement in generating/placing the story.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel concluded the complainant did not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Roche or its agents instigated or placed the article as alleged.
No breach was ruled for any of the clauses considered, including Clause 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