← Back to Cases
PMCPA Case

AUTH/3697/10/22: AstraZeneca symposium influenza vaccine comments and slide approval – No breach

📅 2022 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

⌄
Case numberAUTH/3697/10/22
PartiesComplainant v AstraZeneca UK Limited
TopicPresentations about influenza vaccination (AstraZeneca-sponsored symposium)
Event contextOptions XI for the Control of INFLUENZA congress (ISIRV meeting), Belfast, September 2022
Main allegations(1) Slides not copy approved (no job bag code seen). (2) Speaker comment about 2021 vaccine effectiveness being down to ‘mismatch’ of strains (alleged misleading/disparaging) and inadequate speaker briefing.
Company positionSlides examined as non-promotional in VVPM; approval code/date on first slide; comment was contextual/qualified and supported by GOV.UK data; speakers verbally briefed and rehearsed.
Applicable Code2021 ABPI Code of Practice
Clauses considered6.1, 6.6, 8.1, 9.1
DecisionNo breach of Clauses 6.1, 6.6, 8.1, 9.1
AppealNo appeal
Complaint received14 October 2022
Case completed28 September 2023

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

⌄
  • An anonymous complainant attended the ‘Options XI for the Control of INFLUENZA’ congress (September 2022) and an AstraZeneca-sponsored symposium with two external expert speakers.
  • The complainant alleged the slides did not appear to be copy approved because they did not see a job bag code on any slide (they joined a few minutes late and particularly noted the final slide).
  • The complainant also alleged a speaker said flu vaccine effectiveness in 2021 was down to a ‘mismatch’ of strains, which they believed was factually incorrect and disparaging to current flu vaccine manufacturers, potentially undermining trust.
  • AstraZeneca said the symposium was intended as a non-promotional scientific exchange; the speaker slide decks were examined (not certified) in Veeva Vault PromoMats by a global medical affairs lead and a global nominated signatory.
  • AstraZeneca said approval code and date of preparation were on the first slide of each deck; the complainant may have missed these by arriving late.
  • AstraZeneca provided a transcript and said the ‘mismatch’ comment was a qualified, contextual explanation (“possibly”) alongside other factors, supported by UK Government surveillance data.
  • The Panel noted differences between the complainant’s photos and AstraZeneca’s submitted versions: VVPM “viewable rendition” embedded job bag number/expiry date on every page, whereas the “source file/show reel” did not.
  • The Panel noted AstraZeneca provided verbal briefings and a slide rehearsal briefing, but no written speaker briefing document was provided (the Panel said written briefing would be good practice).
⚖️

Outcome

⌄
  • No breach of Clause 6.1.
  • No breach of Clause 6.6.
  • No breach of Clause 8.1.
  • No breach of Clause 9.1.
  • 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

⭐ Charter Member — Until 31 March

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export. £1,999/year £2,499

Get Charter Access →

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free