AstraZeneca: employees’ LinkedIn ‘likes’ treated as advertising a POM to the public (Tagrisso) (AUTH/3813/8/23)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3813/8/23
Company	AstraZeneca
Medicine	Tagrisso (osimertinib)
Channel	LinkedIn (third-party post ‘liked’ by employees)
Main issue	Advertising a prescription only medicine to the public via employee engagement with favourable third-party content
Applicable Code year	2021
Complaint received	23 August 2023
Case completed	20 September 2024
Appeal hearing	No appeal
Breach clauses	3.2, 5.1, 5.2, 26.1
No breach clauses	2, 3.1, 5.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated

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

📋

⌄

A third-party institution posted on LinkedIn about a pre-clinical study discussing resistance to osimertinib and how it might be reversed/restored in certain EGFR-mutant lung tumours.
Three UK-based AstraZeneca employees ‘liked’ the post, which the Panel considered would proactively disseminate it to their LinkedIn connections (likely including members of the public).
The Panel considered the third-party post itself was not in scope of the Code, but the employees’ engagement brought it within scope and AstraZeneca was responsible.
The post and linked news release included statements the Panel viewed as favourable to osimertinib (eg, “reversed resistance”, “restore the potency”, “reinstate osimertinib sensitivity”).
The complainant also alleged off-licence promotion and a wider culture/training issue; the Panel did not uphold Clause 2 and did not find the off-licence allegation made out on the balance of probabilities.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found for advertising a prescription only medicine to the public via employees’ LinkedIn ‘likes’.
Breach found for failing to maintain high standards and failing to recognise the special nature of medicines.
No breach found for bringing discredit on the industry (Clause 2) and for promotion prior to marketing authorisation (Clause 3.1).
No breach found of Clause 5.1 in relation to the specific allegation of promoting use outside the marketing authorisation (considered under Clause 5.1 because Clause 11.2 was not in scope of the complaint).
No appeal.

📖

⌄

Breach of Clause 3.2 Advertising a prescription only medicine to the public
Breach of Clause 5.1 Failing to maintain high standards
Breach of Clause 5.2 Failing to recognise the special nature of medicines
Breach of Clause 26.1 Advertising a prescription only medicine to the public
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 3.1 Requirement not to promote a medicine prior to the grant of a marketing authorisation
No Breach of Clause 5.1 Requirement to maintain high standards at all times

🔒

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