Daiichi Sankyo breached ABPI Code over HSJ sponsored article transparency (AUTH/3666/6/22)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3666/6/22
Company	Daiichi Sankyo UK Limited
Complainant	Anonymous, contactable health professional
Material	HSJ online sponsored article (HSJ Partners)
Article date	29 October 2019 (World Stroke Day)
Complaint received	27 June 2022
Case completed	2 June 2023
Applicable Code year	2019
Appeal	No appeal
Breach clauses	Clause 9.10; Clause 9.1
No breach clauses	Clause 12.1; Clause 14.1; Clause 9.1; Clause 2 (and Panel also ruled no breach of Clause 4.1 in the full report)
Core issue	Insufficiently clear at the outset that the author was a senior Daiichi Sankyo employee; extent of company involvement not immediately apparent
Sanctions	Undertaking received

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 health professional complained about an online article in the Health Service Journal (HSJ) published on World Stroke Day (29 October 2019) titled “Addressing variations in the diagnosis and treatment of atrial fibrillation is key to the NHS achieving its stroke care target”.
The complainant alleged the piece was funded/commissioned by Daiichi Sankyo but this was not made clear at the start, and alleged disguised promotion (linking AF, anticoagulants and Daiichi Sankyo’s product Lixiana), lack of prescribing information, and lack of certification.
The article carried HSJ “paid-for content”/“sponsored” labelling and a “Sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo” logo, but the author’s job title and company (showing they were a senior Daiichi Sankyo employee) appeared only at the end.
Daiichi Sankyo said the intent was non-promotional “thought leadership” for HSJ’s health system/policy audience and that the article did not name any medicine or class; it also said the article had been certified as non-promotional by a medical signatory.

⚖️

⌄

Breach: The Panel ruled it would not have been clear until the end that the article was written by a senior Daiichi Sankyo employee; this should have been stated at the top so readers understood the extent of company involvement from the outset.
No breach: The Panel did not consider the complainant established that the article promoted a specific Daiichi Sankyo medicine (so no requirement for prescribing information for a specific medicine).
No breach: The Panel accepted the article had been certified (as non-promotional) and did not constitute disguised promotion.
No breach: The Panel did not accept the broader allegation that Daiichi Sankyo’s compliance framework/knowledge/accountability was “severely poor” based on a “raft of breaches”.

📖

⌄

Breach of Clause 9.10 – Failing to be sufficiently clear as to the company’s role and involvement
Breach of Clause 9.1 – Failing to maintain high standards
No Breach of Clause 12.1 – Requirement that promotional material and activities must not be disguised
No Breach of Clause 14.1 – Requirement to certify promotional material
No Breach of Clause 9.1 – Requirement to maintain high standards
No Breach of Clause 2 – Requirement that activities or material must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry

🔒

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