AUTH/2786/8/15: Keppra medical information email reposted on ESNA website — UCB found not responsible (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2786/8/15
Complainant	NHS medicines information pharmacist
Company	UCB Pharma Ltd
Medicine	Keppra (levetiracetam)
Channel	Epilepsy Nurse Association (ESNA) website (news page)
Issue	Company MI email extract posted on an apparently independent website without attribution; source only apparent by cross-checking phone number
Clauses considered	4.1, 9.1, 9.10
Decision	No breach
Key reasoning	Material appeared to be an unsolicited MI response and was published by ESNA without UCB’s knowledge/consent; UCB not responsible for the website publication
Action taken	UCB asked ESNA to remove the material; ESNA removed it
Complaint received	06 August 2015
Case completed	07 September 2015
Appeal	No appeal
Applicable Code year	2015

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 NHS medicines information pharmacist complained about content on the Epilepsy Nurse Association (ESNA) website titled “Data on Keppra v generic levetiracetam”.
The ESNA page reproduced text from an email response which began: “Thank you for your request for information on the prescribing of branded Keppra (levetiracetam) vs. generic levetiracetam …”.
The email extract was “signed” by a medical information officer and included a telephone number for further information.
The complainant alleged it was inappropriate/unethical for a company piece to appear on an apparently independent website without being identified as company material; the UCB source was only apparent by cross-checking the phone number.
UCB stated the text originated from a March 2012 unsolicited medical information request from an epilepsy nurse specialist and that ESNA published an extract without UCB’s knowledge or consent.
After being notified of the complaint, UCB contacted ESNA and requested removal; ESNA removed the material.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel considered UCB was not responsible for the publication of the information on the ESNA website given it was posted without UCB’s knowledge or consent.
Therefore, neither prescribing information nor a statement identifying the responsible pharmaceutical company was required for that website posting.

🔒

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