Accord breached ABPI Code after LinkedIn post described POMs as “vital COVID-19 medicines” (AUTH/3339/4/20)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3339/4/20
Complainant	Anonymous, contactable employee
Company	Accord-UK Ltd
Channel	LinkedIn (corporate page)
Issue	Promotion of prescription only medicines to the public via a public social media post
Medicines named	Cisatracurium, midazolam, paracetamol (injection/infusion formulations; POMs)
Key wording	“vital COVID-19 medicines”
Complaint received	27 April 2020
Case completed	30 November 2020
Applicable Code year	2019
Breach clauses	2; 9.1; 26.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: 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

🎬 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, contactable employee complained about an Accord-UK Ltd corporate LinkedIn post.
The post said that, due to growing demand for “vital COVID-19 medicines”, including cisatracurium, midazolam and paracetamol, Accord was working with regulatory agencies to expedite approval of a new manufacturing facility to increase output.
Accord manufactured the referenced products as injection/infusion formulations; all were prescription only medicines (POMs).
Accord said the post was intended to be non-promotional, factual, and about responding to shortages during the COVID-19 public health crisis; it said no indications were given and no product claims were made.
Accord stated the material was examined via email by two externally validated and nominated final medical signatories before posting.
The Panel considered LinkedIn content could be read by a wide range of people and, on the balance of probabilities, included members of the public.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled the LinkedIn post promoted POMs to the public by referring positively to them as “vital COVID-19 medicines”.
The Panel ruled that high standards had not been maintained.
The Panel ruled the company had brought discredit upon, and reduced confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry, noting an “extremely poor understanding of the Code”.
No appeal. Case completed 30 November 2020.

🔒

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