PMCPA Case Analysis

Over 2,000 real rulings β€” analysed for what they mean to your team. Published every day.

All Cases PMCPA Case of the Week PMCPA Cases

Showing 1914 cases

2007
CASE
AUTH/2055/10/07 UCB Pharma ⭐ Case of the Week

AUTH/2055/10/07: UCB Pharma advertorial in The Times supplement promoted POMs to the public (Keppra, Neupro)

UCB voluntarily admitted a paid advertorial in a Parkinson’s Disease supplement distributed with The Times that named Keppra and Neupro (POMs). PMCPA…

2018
CASE
AUTH/3083/9/18 Eisai

AUTH/3083/9/18: Director v Eisai β€” Clinical trial disclosure (outwith scope; no breach)

PMCPA case AUTH/3083/9/18 (Director v Eisai) about clinical trial disclosure. The matter was ruled outwith the scope of the ABPI Code (2016).…

2018
CASE
AUTH/3084/9/18 Boehringer Ingelheim

AUTH/3084/9/18: Director v Boehringer Ingelheim β€” Clinical trial disclosure (No breach after appeal)

BMJ EUCTR compliance paper triggered a PMCPA complaint about late trial results posting. Panel initially found a Clause 9.1 breach for one…

2012
CASE
AUTH/2496/4/12 Merz Pharma UK

AUTH/2496/4/12: Allergan/PMCPA Director v Merz – β€œequipotent” and 1:1 conversion ads for Xeomin/Bocouture implied interchangeability and breached an undertaking

Merz ads comparing Xeomin/Bocouture with Botox/Vistabel used β€œequipotent/equal potency” and β€œ1:1 conversion” with side-by-side vials. Panel found misleading; Appeal Board also found…

2012
CASE
AUTH/2488/3/12 Meda Pharmaceuticals

Meda: uninvited β€˜Patient Safety’ email about EpiPen ruled disguised promotion (AUTH/2488/3/12)

A pharmacist complained about an uninvited Meda email titled as β€œPatient Safety” but promoting EpiPen. PMCPA found disguised promotion and use of…

2008
CASE
Astellas Pharma ⭐ Case of the Week

Astellas breached Clause 7.2 after Qutenza β€˜consensus statement’ insert implied independent/NICE-backed positioning

A Qutenza journal insert styled as a β€˜consensus statement’ and β€˜adapted from NICE’ was ruled misleading: funding/organisation by Astellas wasn’t clear upfront…

2012
CASE
AUTH/2533/10/12 Bayer

Anonymous v Bayer: Incentive scheme materials implied call targets that could breach the ABPI limit on unsolicited representative calls (AUTH/2533/10/12)

Bayer incentive scheme slides and emails pushed frequency targets (eg 50% of targets seen 3 times) without clearly stating ABPI limits. Panel…

2013
CASE
AUTH/2578/2/13 Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK

Journalist v Novartis: Daily Mail article alleged to promote Xolair via third-party quotes and pack shot (AUTH/2578/2/13)

A journalist alleged a Daily Mail Online story was covert promotion of Xolair. PMCPA assessed Novartis’ earlier press release (not the article)…

2012
CASE
AUTH/2544/11/12 Napp Pharmaceuticals

AUTH/2544/11/12: GP v Napp β€” BuTrans promotional emails to NHS address (no breach)

A GP complained that BuTrans ads were emailed twice to her NHS account. The Panel found evidence she had opted in via…

2013
CASE
AUTH/2594/4/13 Lundbeck

AUTH/2594/4/13: General practitioner v Lundbeck (Cipralex email via database agency) – No breach

A GP queried whether a Cipralex promotional email sent via a third-party database was unsolicited/spam. Panel found the recipient had previously opted…

2013
CASE
AUTH/2572/1/13 AstraZeneca ⭐ Case of the Week

AUTH/2572/1/13: Ex-employee v AstraZeneca – Seroquel investor presentations and weight-gain claims (No breach)

Ex-employee alleged archived investor presentations made false/imbalanced claims about Seroquel and weight gain. Panel and Appeal Board ruled no breach of Clause…

2013
CASE
AUTH/2619/7/13 Sanofi

Sanofi breached an undertaking by leaving Lyxumia β€œcost-effective/value” press release live (AUTH/2619/7/13)

Sanofi was ruled in breach for failing to comply with an earlier PMCPA undertaking after a Lyxumia press release remained on its…

2013
CASE
AUTH/2649/10/13 GlaxoSmithKline

GSK joint working project: materials certified 7–8 months after project start (AUTH/2649/10/13)

GSK voluntarily admitted a COPD NHS joint working project started and used materials before Code certification. PMCPA ruled breaches of Clauses 14.3,…

2013
CASE
AUTH/2653/11/13 Sanofi

AUTH/2653/11/13: Novo Nordisk v Sanofi β€” Lyxumia slides ruled misleading due to insufficient context from head-to-head study (Clause 7.2)

Sanofi used selective graphs from a 28‑day pharmacodynamic study to compare Lyxumia vs Victoza. The Panel said it wasn’t clear results were…

2015
CASE
Amgen

Sanofi v Amgen: Repatha ESC leavepiece headline β€˜75% additional LDL‑C reduction vs placebo’ ruled misleading

A Repatha leavepiece used a prominent β€˜75% additional LDL‑C reduction vs placebo’ headline from a small study cohort. The Panel ruled the…

Ask questions about any PMCPA case

Anzal, our PMCPA rulings expert, has knowledge of over 2,000 published cases β€” ask about precedents, clauses, and how they apply to your situation.

⭐ Flagship Programme

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

12 modules. 12 weeks. Final Signatory readiness. The industry standard for ABPI Code signatories — £995 + VAT.

Enrol — AQP Path Learn more

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week β€” free.

Subscribe Free
🎓 AQP Training