← Back to Cases
PMCPA Case

AUTH/3896/5/24: Complainant v Roche — patient organisation materials and declaration of involvement (No breach)

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

⌄
Case numberAUTH/3896/5/24
CompanyRoche Products Ltd
ComplainantAnonymous, contactable; described themselves as a health professional
IssueAlleged lack of declaration of Roche involvement “from the outset” on patient organisation programme materials/webpages
Programme/materialsPatient education self-management programme run by a named patient organisation (name not stated in the published report)
Funding describedRoche stated it provided £15,000 in March 2023 under a certified grant agreement; £5,000 contributed to supporting implementation of the campaign
Applicable Code2021
Clauses considered2, 5.1, 23.2, 25.3
Panel decisionNo breach of Clauses 2, 5.1, 23.2, 25.3
Complaint received7 May 2024
Case completed25 April 2025
AppealNo appeal
SanctionsNone

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, contactable health professional complained that a UK patient organisation’s self-management programme materials did not clearly declare Roche’s involvement “from the outset”.
  • The complainant alleged declarations were missing on several programme-related webpages/materials (four URLs cited) and said Roche funding was only noted elsewhere on the charity website (a separate corporate funding page).
  • Roche said it provided £15,000 to the patient organisation under a certified grant agreement in March 2023, with £5,000 contributing to implementation of the programme campaign during 2023.
  • Roche said the programme’s ongoing implementation in 2024 was funded by another pharmaceutical company and that references to Roche were removed from the programme page when Roche’s support expired.
  • The Panel reviewed the cited webpages individually (including a workshops page advertising May–Nov 2024 events; a PDF template programme with copyright Dec 2023 and a URL suggesting publication Feb 2024; the programme homepage showing another company’s declaration; and an “About… for CNSs” page).
  • The Panel noted Roche did not provide the grant agreement, so it was unclear whether the grant supported overall running costs or development of specific materials/activities.
  • The Panel emphasised the complainant’s burden to establish (on the balance of probabilities) that Roche originally funded the specific materials, that no substantive changes had been made, and that the materials remained available after sponsorship ended.
⚖️

Outcome

⌄
  • No breach of Clause 25.3.
  • No breach of Clause 23.2.
  • No breach of Clause 5.1.
  • No breach of 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
← All Cases Book a Free Compliance Call

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

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

Subscribe Free