Daiichi Sankyo disease awareness campaign with patient organisation: material treated as contract for services, not all public education certified (AUTH/3629/4/22)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3629/4/22
Parties	Complainant v Daiichi Sankyo
Complaint received	11 April 2022
Case completed	30 March 2023
Applicable Code year	2021
Material/campaign	Disease awareness campaign on a patient organisation website (“Get a cholesterol test” / “Cholesterol Awareness Campaign 2021”)
Panel view of arrangement	Contract for services (company responsible for materials); also appeared not arm’s length
Breach clauses	Clause 5.1; Clause 8.3
No breach clauses	Clause 2; Clause 5.5
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous whistleblowing complainant alleged Daiichi Sankyo initiated and conducted a “get a cholesterol test” disease awareness campaign with a patient organisation and that not all related materials were certified.
The patient organisation’s landing page included a disclaimer stating Daiichi Sankyo provided funding and “identification of areas of the country where people are living with high levels of cholesterol” for outreach, and claimed Daiichi Sankyo had “no input or influence” over materials.
Daiichi Sankyo described its role as “sponsorship” (funding plus a “cholesterol heatmap” report using publicly available data) and said it only certified the disclaimer, not the wider campaign materials.
The written agreement was titled “Collaboration Agreement” but repeatedly described “services” to be provided by the patient organisation; it included an IP clause assigning to Daiichi Sankyo intellectual property rights in materials developed “in connection with the Services”.
The agreement described a “Cholesterol Awareness Campaign 2021” (June 2021 to 1 March 2022) and referenced outputs such as social media activity, a landing page, cholesterol e-News, and reporting/analytics (anonymised, non-identifiable).
The Panel considered the arrangement not arm’s length and, based on the contract terms, treated it as a contract for services—meaning Daiichi Sankyo was responsible under the Code for the activity and materials.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found: Clause 8.3 (certain educational material for the public related to the disease awareness campaign had not been certified).
Breach found: Clause 5.1 (failure to maintain high standards, including inadequate oversight/understanding that the company was responsible for the materials).
No breach: Clause 5.5 (Panel had no evidence that Daiichi Sankyo’s involvement was not declared on all campaign materials beyond the landing page).
No breach: Clause 2 (on balance, limited evidence did not establish discredit to the industry).
Panel also noted concerns (not alleged) about an offer on the certified webpage of “10%+ off a cholesterol test” or a free cholesterol test, and asked that Daiichi Sankyo be advised of its concerns.

📖

⌄

Breach of Clause 5.1 Failing to maintain high standards
Breach of Clause 8.3 Failing to certify educational material for the public related to disease
No Breach of Clause 2 Requirement that activities or material must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry
No Breach of Clause 5.5 Requirement to be sufficiently clear as to the company’s role and involvement

🔒

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