Takeda: funding linked to product advocacy implied in email about exhibition stand sponsorship (AUTH/2862/8/16)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2862/8/16
Parties	Anonymous, non-contactable complainant v Takeda
Issue	Engagement of a consultant and his/her training and consultancy company; grants for therapy reviews; exhibition stand sponsorship; alleged inducement/switching support
Complaint received	03 August 2016
Case completed	09 January 2017
Applicable Code year	2014 (October 2014 matters ruled under 2014 Code; 2015 matters considered under 2016 Code as no significant differences were noted)
No breach clauses	Clause(s) 18.1, 19.1, 19.2, 21 and 23.1
Breach clauses	Clause(s) 2, 9.1, 18.1 and 18.6
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Advertisement
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant alleged a specialist nurse (who also ran a training/consultancy company) delivered NHS-facing audits, clinics and workshops funded by multiple pharma companies including Takeda, and had prescribing influence in a local CCG.
Concerns included alleged coercive behaviour (eg, implying products wouldn’t be used without funding) and alleged abnormal prescribing/switching patterns linked to funded activity.
Takeda had provided restricted-use grants in 2015 to support two therapy review/clinic services at two GP practices/centres; both projects were sub-contracted to the nurse’s consultancy company.
Takeda also paid for exhibition stand space at a one-day awareness course run by the consultancy company in October 2014.
An internal email (Oct 2014) between Takeda representatives described the nurse “convincing GP practices to switch and use” Takeda’s product and stated that “in return” for support the nurse had agreed to “advocate, and help and support” Takeda’s product in primary care.
Senior staff were copied into the email, but the payment proceeded and Takeda did not adequately assess whether the exhibition stand fee was fair market value.
Takeda later engaged the nurse as a speaker at two promotional meetings in Nov/Dec 2015 while the nurse’s company was providing (non-promotional) therapy review services funded via Takeda grants.

⚖️

⌄

No breach was ruled for the allegations that the therapy reviews/audits were switch services or inducements to prescribe (Clauses 18.1, 19.1, 19.2) because the complainant provided no supporting evidence and the Panel did not consider the arrangements proven to be inducements on the balance of probabilities.
Breach was ruled in relation to the October 2014 exhibition stand payment because the email created a link between funding and product advocacy/support, and fair market value was not adequately assessed.
Breach was ruled for failure to maintain high standards, including lack of due diligence around the nurse’s contemporaneous non-promotional and promotional roles.
No breach was ruled for Clause 23.1 (inducement via speaker engagement) and Clause 21 (relationships/contracts with certain organisations) on the evidence available.
The Panel decided not to report Takeda to the Code of Practice Appeal Board for further sanctions, despite the Clause 2 breach.

🔒

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