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)
Material/channel	Daily Mirror newspaper article (print and online)
Main allegation	Company-inspired/placed mainstream media story amounting to off-label promotion to the public and implied benefit claims
PMCPA clauses considered	Clauses 2, 9.1, 23.1 and 23.2
Decision	No breach of the Code
Complaint received	30 July 2014
Case completed	15 October 2014
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	None

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 and 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 Products Limited, and discussed use for a brain tumour (glioblastoma/GBM), an indication for which Avastin was not licensed in the EU/UK.
The complainant alleged the article was company-inspired and placed by Roche’s agents, amounting to promotion to the public and off-label promotion, and that it implied improved/extended quality of life without supporting data.
The complainant alleged there would be a “paper trail” involving Roche, its agents and the Daily Mirror, but provided no documentation and did not respond to a PMCPA request for further information.
Roche denied instigating or placing the story, stated it was counter to UK strategy to promote for GBM, and described only reactive interaction following a journalist enquiry.
Roche described an internal investigation (compliance/HR-led) including interviews, CRM searches, review of several thousand emails, and agency interviews; it found no evidence of tipping off or placing the story.
Roche stated it told the journalist Avastin was not licensed for GBM in the UK and, when asked about other countries, verbally stated it was licensed for GBM in Japan.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code.
The Panel ruled the complainant had not proven, on the balance of probabilities, that Roche or its agents instigated or placed the article as alleged.
No breaches were ruled under Clauses 2, 9.1, 23.1 and 23.2.
No appeal.

🔒

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