AUTH/3752/3/23: PMCPA Director/Media v Novo Nordisk (Observer articles on semaglutide/‘skinny jab’) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3752/3/23
Parties	PMCPA Director/Media v Novo Nordisk
Issue	Observer articles alleging PR influence, payments/grants, conflicts of interest and transparency issues relating to semaglutide for weight loss (Wegovy)
Media/publication	The Observer (print and online)
Articles/dates	Four articles dated 12 March 2023 (print/online) and one online article dated 2 April 2023
Complaint received	13 March 2023
Case completed	1 November 2023
Applicable Code	2021
Appeal	No appeal
Outcome	No breach of Clauses 2, 5.1, 6.1, 14.4, 19.1, 23.2, 24.2, 24.3, 27.1, 27.2, 27.5
Sanctions	None 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

⌄

The PMCPA Director took up a complaint following five Observer articles (print/online, 12 March 2023 and 2 April 2023) critical of Novo Nordisk’s activities around semaglutide for weight loss (Wegovy) and alleged influence via payments, grants and PR.
Allegations included: large sums paid to experts and organisations; conflicts of interest not always made clear; hyperbolic statements (eg, “game changer”); influence on NICE processes; and funding linked to NHS weight-loss services.
Novo Nordisk refuted inappropriate influence, stating individuals were engaged for legitimate services under contracts with disclosure obligations; most organisational support was via documented grants/sponsorship for legitimate purposes; and it did not direct or brief individuals for media quotes.
Novo Nordisk could not locate two older contracts (June 2019 steering committee; October 2019 obesity academy) said to pre-date its current contract management system.
The Panel noted the Code applies to pharmaceutical companies’ conduct only; the complainant bore the burden of proof; and the article authors declined involvement so further detail could not be sought.

⚖️

Outcome

⌄

No breach of the ABPI Code of Practice (2021) was ruled for all clauses considered.
The Panel found insufficient evidence (on the balance of probabilities) that payments/grants/contracted services were inducements or that Novo Nordisk was responsible for the quoted media statements.
The Panel considered the APPG obesity support (secretariat funding via third party; ceased July 2021) and did not find it contrary to the Code on the limited information available.

📖

Clauses

⌄

No Breach of Clause 2 Requirement that activities or materials must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry
No Breach of Clause 5.1 (x2) Requirement to maintain high standards
No Breach of Clause 6.1 Requirement that claims/information/comparisons must not be misleading
No Breach of Clause 14.4 Requirement that claims should not imply that a medicine or an active ingredient has some special merit, quality or property unless this can be substantiated
No Breach of Clause 19.1 Requirement that no gift, pecuniary advantage or benefit may be supplied, offered or promised to health professionals or to other relevant decision makers in connection with the promotion of medicines or as an inducement
No Breach of Clause 23.2 Requirement that donations to healthcare organisations do not constitute an inducement
No Breach of Clause 24.2 (x3) Requirement for arrangements which cover genuine consultancy or other services to fulfil the criteria set out in Clause 24.2
No Breach of Clause 24.3 (x2) Requirement, among other things, that contracted services must not constitute an inducement
No Breach of Clause 27.1 Requirements for interactions with patient organisations or any user organisations
No Breach of Clause 27.2 Requirements for the written agreement when providing donations, grants or sponsorship to patient organisations.
No Breach of Clause 27.5 Requirements for contracted services with patient organisations or individuals representing patient organisations

🔒

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

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access

AUTH/3752/3/23: PMCPA Director/Media v Novo Nordisk (Observer articles on semaglutide/‘skinny jab’) – No breach

Key facts

What happened

Outcome

Unlock the full case analysis

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown