Takeda: ‘ASH 2020 Highlights’ webinar ruled promotional for an unlicensed indication (ixazomib frontline myeloma)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3469/2/21
Company	Takeda UK Limited
Activity	‘ASH 2020 Highlights’ online meeting (webinar)
Date of meeting	21 January 2021
Complainant	Anonymous, contactable; described self as a UK oncologist
Products referenced in case background	Ninlaro (ixazomib); Adcetris (brentuximab vedotin)
Core issue	Meeting ruled not to be legitimate scientific exchange; discussion of ixazomib first-line myeloma ruled promotional for an unlicensed indication
Attendance	192 health professional delegates
Complaint received	02 February 2021
Case completed	23 July 2021
Applicable Code year	2019
Breach clauses	Clause 3.2; Clause 9.1
No breach clauses	Clause 2; Clause 3.1; Clause 12.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received
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 UK oncologist complained about a Takeda UK-organised, CPD-accredited online meeting: “ASH 2020 Highlights” (21 January 2021).
The complainant said the content was good but there was limited time for Q&A/discussion and it “felt like” Takeda wanted HCPs to prescribe after the meeting.
The complainant was concerned that unlicensed use/indications were discussed (example given: ixazomib for first-line multiple myeloma) and queried whether this was allowed.
The complainant also queried: (a) the use of the black triangle symbol and whether it implied reporting side effects for unlicensed medicines, and (b) advertising/registration via Twitter.
Takeda said the meeting was organised by its medical department as a non-promotional “scientific exchange” forum, with speakers selecting abstracts independently and with licence status clearly stated on relevant slides.
Meeting logistics included 4 presentations (43–92 slides each), planned 20 minutes speaking + 5 minutes Q&A per talk, plus a 15-minute panel discussion; 192 HCP delegates attended.
The Panel focused on whether the format delivered a genuine two-way scientific exchange (rather than a one-way flow of information) and whether discussion of unlicensed indications crossed into promotion.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 3.2 (promotion of an unlicensed indication): the meeting discussed ixazomib for first-line myeloma and, as it was not legitimate scientific exchange, this was ruled promotional for an unlicensed indication.
Breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards): high standards were not maintained in relation to the meeting.
No breach of Clause 2 (not considered warranted in the circumstances).
No breach of Clause 3.1 (the issue related to an unlicensed indication for a licensed medicine, considered under Clause 3.2).
No breach of Clause 12.1 (promotional nature not disguised; it was clear it was a Takeda-organised meeting and that investigational and licensed agents would be discussed).
No breach found regarding Twitter advertising/registration (Panel was unclear what the allegation was; tweets were certified, did not mention products, and linked to HCP-gated registration).
No breach found regarding use of the black triangle on relevant slides (Panel did not consider this failed to maintain high standards in the circumstances).

🔒

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