AUTH/3778/6/23: Daiichi Sankyo – unclear declaration of involvement in third‑party AF article

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3778/6/23
Company	Daiichi Sankyo
Material	Article in Cardiac Rhythm News: ‘Exploring the potential of remote atrial fibrillation diagnosis through digital technology’
Channel	Independent news site (Cardiac Rhythm News)
Publication date	August 2021
Complaint received	19 June 2023
Case completed	28 June 2024
Applicable Code	2021
Main issue	Company involvement disclosure was ambiguous and not prominent/at the outset
Breach clauses	Clause 5.1; Clause 5.5
No breach clauses	Clause 2; Clause 8.3
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
Appeal	No appeal

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

📋

⌄

An article titled ‘Exploring the potential of remote atrial fibrillation diagnosis through digital technology’ was published in Cardiac Rhythm News (August 2021).
The opportunity arose after Daiichi Sankyo UK issued a March 2021 press release about a strategic partnership with technology companies to improve detection/diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.
Cardiac Rhythm News approached Daiichi Sankyo with a free editorial (not a paid-for feature) to develop an opinion article related to the partnership.
Daiichi Sankyo facilitated writing of the article via a third-party agency; a director/founder of one partner company contributed views and was not remunerated.
The complainant alleged (a) Daiichi Sankyo’s involvement was not clear from the outset and (b) it was disease awareness that should have been certified.
Daiichi Sankyo said an earlier draft included a clearer declaration (“facilitated by Daiichi Sankyo…”), but the first sentence was removed between versions due to human error.
The published declaration stated only: “The final version has been reviewed for accuracy and compliance by Daiichi Sankyo UK Ltd with the ABPI Code of Practice.”
The declaration appeared at the very end of the article after references, in italicised font much smaller than the main text.
Daiichi Sankyo withdrew the item in its approval system and asked the publisher to remove the online article.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 5.1 (Failing to maintain high standards).
Breach of Clause 5.5 (Failing to be sufficiently clear as to the company’s role and involvement).
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 8.3 (Requirement to certify educational material for the public related to disease).

🔒

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