Roche: Ocrevus prescribing information on multi-therapy “Congress & Meetings” hub page (AUTH/3663/6/22) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3663/6/22
Company	Roche Products Ltd
Complainant	Anonymous, contactable complainant (described self as a health professional)
Medicine	Ocrevus (ocrelizumab)
Material/channel	Roche Resources website – “Congress and Meetings” landing page (M-GB-00006380; Date of preparation: March 2022)
Main allegation	Off-label promotion / implied unlicensed indications (lung cancer, breast cancer, COVID-19) due to Ocrevus PI link on a multi-therapy congress hub page; plus alleged public advertising
Applicable Code	2021
Clauses considered	2, 3.2, 5.1, 11.2
Panel decision	No breach of Clauses 2, 3.2, 5.1, 11.2
Appeal	No appeal
Complaint received	19 June 2022
Case completed	14 June 2023

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 complainant (self-described health professional) alleged off-label promotion of Ocrevus (ocrelizumab) on Roche Products Ltd’s “Roche Resources” website.
The complaint focused on the “Congresses and Meetings” landing page (M-GB-00006380; date of preparation: March 2022), which displayed a prominent link to Ocrevus prescribing information near the top.
The landing page also contained tiles referencing multiple therapy areas/conditions including non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer and breast cancer (alongside neurology content).
A meeting tile title referenced COVID-19: “COVID-19 in OCREVUS (ocrelizumab) treated patients – the story so far”. Another tile referenced “Multiple Sclerosis: impact of COVID-19 and vaccination”.
The complainant alleged that placing Ocrevus prescribing information on a page mentioning oncology and COVID-19 implied Ocrevus was licensed for those conditions, and raised concerns about overall impression for busy HCPs.
The Authority asked Roche to respond under Clauses 2, 3.2 and 5.1 (as cited) and also Clause 11.2.
Roche said the site was aimed at HCPs, with an entry choice (“I am a healthcare professional” vs “I am a member of the public”), and that Ocrevus PI was included because Ocrevus and MS were referenced in titles and could be construed as a product claim.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 3.2 (Prescription only medicines must not be advertised to the public).
No breach of Clause 11.2 (Requirement not to promote a medicine for an unlicensed indication).
No breach of Clause 5.1 (Requirement to maintain high standards).
No breach of Clause 2 (Requirement that material must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry).
No appeal.

🔒

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