← Back to Cases
PMCPA Case

Daiichi-Sankyo: sponsorship disclosure in third-party YouTube meeting recording (Lixiana) found unclear from the outset

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
đź“Š

Key facts

⌄
CaseAUTH/3417/11/20
CompanyDaiichi-Sankyo UK Limited
ProductLixiana (edoxaban)
ChannelYouTube (unlisted infrastructure used by a medical education company)
ActivityRecording of meeting held 8 July 2020
ComplainantAnonymous, contactable patient
Complaint received9 November 2020
Case completed27 May 2021
Applicable Code year2019
Breach clauses9.1, 9.10, 22.4
No breach clauses2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.5, 4.4, 4.6, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 9.1, 11.1, 12.1, 14.1, 14.5, 14.6, 23.1, 26.1, 28.1
AppealComplainant appeal (Clause 2 only) unsuccessful; no breach of Clause 2 upheld
SanctionsUndertaking received; additional sanctions not stated

Download the full case report (PDF)

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
đź“‹

What happened

⌄
  • An anonymous, contactable patient found a YouTube video (a recording of a meeting held on 8 July 2020) on a page run by a medical education company; the complainant believed it was sponsored by Daiichi-Sankyo UK and promoted Lixiana (edoxaban).
  • The complainant said the Daiichi-Sankyo logo appeared at the start, but the speaker only mentioned sponsorship about five minutes in, and there was no clear statement that the content was for health professionals only.
  • The complainant highlighted four slides in the recording that were Daiichi-Sankyo branded and compared edoxaban with warfarin, alleging disguised promotion and lack of mandatory information (e.g., prescribing information, adverse event reporting details, black triangle).
  • Daiichi-Sankyo said the recording was of the independent (medical education company) main clinical session, not Daiichi-Sankyo’s sponsored sessions; the speaker was not selected/paid by Daiichi-Sankyo for that session and Daiichi-Sankyo did not review those slides.
  • Daiichi-Sankyo said the video was stored on an “unlisted” YouTube channel used as infrastructure for delegate access; only registered pharmacist delegates had the link, though entering the link into Google could identify the video.
  • Daiichi-Sankyo’s investigation found the speaker had previously consulted for Daiichi-Sankyo (May 2019) and re-used Daiichi-Sankyo slides in the 2020 presentation without permission; the medical education company did not review the expanded slide deck and the moderator did not intervene.
⚖️

Outcome

⌄
  • Breach found: sponsorship was not sufficiently clear from the outset of the presentation; a logo and later verbal mention were not enough without a written, unambiguous declaration.
  • Breach found: high standards were not maintained in relation to the inadequate sponsorship declaration.
  • No breach: the complainant did not establish that the YouTube recording was publicly available as alleged; and Daiichi-Sankyo had no role in publication of the video.
  • No breach: allegations about promotion to the public, targeting, disguised promotion, missing prescribing information/AE reporting/black triangle, certification, and contracts were not upheld on the evidence.
  • Appeal: the complainant appealed only the ruling of no breach of Clause 2; the Appeal Board upheld no breach of Clause 2.
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value
ÂŁ249/year
Annual — save £99
or
ÂŁ29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access
← All Cases Book a Free Compliance Call

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free