AUTH/2859/7/16: Health Professional v AstraZeneca (alleged promotion to the public) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2859/7/16
Complainant	Health professional (named CCG stated)
Company	AstraZeneca
Allegation	Promotion/advertising of prescription-only medicines to the public via exhibition stands visible in a public restaurant
Meeting details	May 2016; local health professional group meeting; approx. 24 health professionals attended; agenda stated “medical educational meeting… open to health care professionals only”
Product/material referenced	Duaklir Genuair (aclidinium/formoterol) promotional stand; interactive detail aid and leavepiece
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 26.1
Panel decision	No breach of Clauses 26.1, 9.1 and 2
Key evidence noted	Photos and room plan showing frosted glass, net curtains, closed doors, manned registration desk, and stand placement not readily visible from outside
Complaint received	25 July 2016
Case completed	8 September 2016
Appeal	No appeal

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

📋

⌄

A health professional complained about a May 2016 meeting held in a private room at a restaurant that was open to the public.
The complainant alleged pharmaceutical company exhibition stands (including AstraZeneca’s) were “in full view of the public” and visible from outside.
AstraZeneca said it had a Duaklir Genuair (aclidinium/formoterol) promotional stand and two representatives present; the stand and materials were used with health professionals and taken down before presentations began.
AstraZeneca stated the stand was inside a signposted private room with closed doors, a manned registration desk, frosted glass doors/windows and net curtains; stands were positioned at the far end of the room facing inward.
The Authority asked AstraZeneca to respond under Clauses 2, 9.1 and 26.1.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled No breach of the Code.
The Panel found no evidence that prescription-only medicines were promoted to the public.
The Panel found no evidence supporting the allegation that AstraZeneca’s stand was in full view of the public or visible from outside.
The Panel noted the complainant provided little information and no evidence, and the complainant bore the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.

🔒

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