← Back to Cases
PMCPA Case

Daiichi Sankyo: non–arm’s length patient organisation cholesterol campaign and non-compliant abbreviated ad (AUTH/3594/12/21)

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

⌄
CaseAUTH/3594/12/21
ComplainantHealth professional
CompanyDaiichi-Sankyo UK Ltd
ProductsNilemdo (bempedoic acid); Nustendi (bempedoic acid and ezetimibe)
ActivityDisease awareness campaign with a named patient organisation (“Get clued-up on cholesterol”) and an abbreviated advertisement in MIMS (BEM/21/0227, April 2021)
Main issuesNon–arm’s length sponsorship leading to company responsibility; missing/insufficient sponsorship disclosure on downloadable materials and Facebook posts; certification timing and scope; abbreviated ad contained multiple claims
Complaint received18 December 2021
Case completed09 December 2022
AppealNo appeal
Breach clauses5.1, 13.8, 9.1, 9.10, 14.3
No breach clauses2, 19.2, 26.1, 26.2
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
📋

What happened

⌄
  • A health professional complained about Daiichi-Sankyo UK Ltd’s relationship with a named patient organisation running a public disease awareness programme, “Get clued-up on cholesterol”.
  • The patient organisation’s campaign included a landing page, an educational knowledge test/questionnaire, and “downloadable heart healthy recipes and cholesterol lowering advice PDF”, promoted via Facebook during October 2020.
  • Daiichi-Sankyo provided funding and shared “heat maps” identifying areas with high cholesterol/CVD burden; the patient organisation shared campaign analytics back with Daiichi-Sankyo.
  • The complainant alleged the arrangement was not arm’s length, that Daiichi-Sankyo’s involvement was not disclosed from the outset across all campaign materials (including social media and other pages), and that all campaign materials required company certification.
  • The complainant also alleged the patient organisation’s treatments content inappropriately mentioned bempedoic acid in a public-facing context.
  • Separately, the complainant challenged an abbreviated advertisement for Nilemdo (bempedoic acid) and Nustendi (bempedoic acid and ezetimibe) in MIMS (BEM/21/0227, April 2021), alleging it contained three claims when only one concise statement is permitted.
  • The Panel found the contractual documentation (MSA/SOW) inconsistently described the activity (contracted services vs sponsorship/collaboration) and concluded, on balance, it was sponsorship that was not at arm’s length—meaning Daiichi-Sankyo was responsible for the sponsored materials’ content.
⚖️

Outcome

⌄
  • Breach: Clause 14.3 (2019 Code) – agreements/materials not certified before activity commenced and publicly available campaign material not certified.
  • Breach: Clause 9.10 (2019 Code) – inadequate declaration of sponsorship on downloadable campaign materials (recipes/PDF) and on Facebook posts (users had to click through to see disclosure).
  • Breach: Clause 9.1 (2019 Code) – high standards not maintained, including inconsistent classification and missing disclosure on Facebook posts.
  • No breach: Clause 19.2 (2019 Code) (similar to Clause 23.2 of 2021 Code) – donations/grants clause not applicable as payment was not a donation or grant.
  • No breach: Clauses 26.1 and 26.2 – mere reference to bempedoic acid on a treatments page was not, on the narrow allegation, a breach; and responsibility for that treatments page was not established.
  • No breach: Clause 2 – Panel did not consider discredit to the industry was established on balance.
  • Breach: Clause 13.8 (2021 Code) – abbreviated advertisement did not meet requirements (multiple claims rather than a single concise statement).
  • Breach: Clause 5.1 (2021 Code) – high standards not maintained in relation to the abbreviated advertisement.
  • No appeal.
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

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

Best value
£249/year
Annual — save £99
or
£29/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