AstraZeneca & Merck Sharp & Dohme advisory board: photos of HCPs taken and shared internally without consent (Clause 9.1 breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3295/1/20 and AUTH/3296/1/20
Parties	Oncologist v AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme
Meeting type	Advisory board (jointly organised)
Therapy/medicine	Lynparza (olaparib)
Indication context	Ovarian cancer; discussion included new data (PAOLA-1 and PRIMA) and future pathways/HTA strategy
Date of meeting	8 November 2019
Location	London
Complaint received	2 January 2020
Completed	10 July 2020 (cases completed 6 July 2020 and 10 July 2020)
Applicable Code year	2019
Breach	Clause 9.1
Core breach conduct	Photographs identifying individual health professionals were taken and posted on AstraZeneca’s internal system without obtaining those HCPs’ consent.
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous practising oncologist complained about a jointly organised advisory board in London (8 Nov 2019) on new ovarian cancer data (PAOLA-1 and PRIMA) relating to Lynparza (olaparib).
The complainant alleged the meeting felt like an “interrogation”, with too many company staff (including sales/marketing/market access) and an agency representative present.
The complainant said the invitation did not make clear the format/level of questioning or that an AstraZeneca employee would chair/co-chair.
The complainant objected to workshop-style breakout sessions (flip charts), describing them as humiliating.
The complainant raised concern that doctors were required to sign confidentiality agreements.
The complainant alleged photos were taken without prior written consent; AstraZeneca acknowledged photos were taken and that two HCPs were identifiable in some images, which were posted on AstraZeneca’s internal collaboration platform.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found: Clause 9.1 (high standards) for taking photographs identifying individual health professionals and posting them internally without obtaining consent.
No breach found: Clauses 3.2, 12.1 (promotion/off-label/disguised promotion allegations not proven on the balance of probabilities).
No breach found: Clause 23.1 (advisory board arrangements not shown to be unacceptable; internal co-chair not unacceptable per se).
No breach found: Clause 9.1 in relation to number/type of attendees, workshop format, and confidentiality agreements (except the photographs issue).
No breach found: Clause 2 (Panel did not consider the circumstances warranted particular censure).

🔒

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