Sandoz: ABN for natalizumab biosimilar ruled promotional pre-authorisation (AUTH/3768/5/23)

📅 2023 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

CaseAUTH/3768/5/23
PartiesHealth professional v Sandoz Limited
IssueAlleged misleading promotion of natalizumab prior to receiving marketing authorisation (ABN materials for a natalizumab biosimilar)
MaterialsFull ABN slide deck and 2-page summarised ABN document
Therapy areaMultiple sclerosis
Applicable Code2021
Complaint received11 May 2023
Case completed23 February 2024
AppealNo appeal
Breach clausesClause 3.1 (x3); Clause 5.1; Clause 6.2
No breach clausesClause 2; Clause 3.1 (x4); Clause 6.1; Clause 6.3; Clause 11.1 (x5); Clause 14.1; Clause 14.4
Notable case noteSandoz confirmed it will no longer accept PMCPA jurisdiction; did not accept breach rulings but did not appeal; complainant and MHRA informed.
Sandoz jurisdiction withdrawal date18 October 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

  • A neurologist complained about Sandoz advance budgetary notification (ABN) materials (a full slide deck and a 2-page summary) for a natalizumab biosimilar for multiple sclerosis, before UK marketing authorisation.
  • The complainant alleged the materials were effectively selling the product to clinicians/pharmacists and included: biosimilar “state-of-the-art”/cost/expertise messaging; Phase III data with strong headings; claims about affordability/reinvestment; and package elements (JCV testing).
  • Sandoz said the materials were non-promotional ABN content aimed only at budget holders, supported by training, an “advanced notification confirmation form”, and that pricing was presented as a corridor (30/40/50%) because list price was not set.
  • The Panel assessed both the full deck (13 content slides) and the summary document, noting the complainant appeared to have access to both.
  • The Panel accepted ABNs for biosimilars can be appropriate in principle, but found parts of these materials went beyond what is permitted for ABN and amounted to promotion prior to marketing authorisation.
  • After the complaint was received, Sandoz confirmed it would no longer accept PMCPA jurisdiction; it did not accept the Panel’s breach rulings but did not appeal. The complainant and MHRA were informed.
⚖️

Outcome

  • Breach found: ABN materials (in parts) did not meet ABN requirements and amounted to promotion prior to marketing authorisation.
  • Breach found: an “affordable… expand patient access and enable reinvestment opportunities” statement was ruled incapable of substantiation.
  • No breach found for: mention of similarity to reference product; Phase III content in the summary document (as presented); inclusion of JCV testing; timing of ABN; use of pricing corridors; omission of administration-method cost information; and Clause 2.
  • 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

⭐ 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