Completed cases

Complaints considered by the Code of Practice Panel are judged on the evidence provided by both parties. Once concluded a case report is published on this website. Good compliance decisions rely on both the interpretation of the Code and an understanding of its application, published case reports help in this regard and set precedent in a particular set of circumstances. When making decisions on compliance with the Code, knowledge gained from previous case reports can be beneficial.                        

Search options for completed cases can be found below, please scroll down.

Please note that abbreviations/acronyms can only be searched under the Text search.

Where searching under clause number please look under sub clause where one exists, eg Clause 6.1 not just 6.

Click on the blue arrow below to search completed cases.  Searches can be run by free Text, Case number, Respondent, Complainant or Clause Number.

The results can then be filtered by: Year Received or Applicable Code Year. Results will be automatically ordered by 'Completed Date - Most Recent First', other options are available to select. 

The order of the results displayed can be changed by clicking in the box beside 'Order Results By'.

Please Note:

Cases can only link to clauses in the interactive 2019 or 2016 Codes.

 

 

 

Search completed cases

AstraZeneca UK Limited voluntary admitted that one of its employees had used his/her personal Twitter account to re-tweet nine tweets about Forxiga (dapagliflozin) and one tweet about Lynparza (olaparib). Forxiga was indicated for use in adults with insufficiently controlled type 2 diabetes. Lynparza was indicated for maintenance and treatment of certain cancers. As Paragraph 5.6 of the Constitution and Procedure required the Director to treat a voluntary admission as a complaint, the matter was taken up...

Breach Clause(s): 3.2, 9.1, 14.3, 26.1

Applicable Code: 2019

Received: 30 September 2019

Completed: 07 February 2020

An individual who described him/herself as a concerned UK health professional complained about Eli Lilly & Company Limited’s diabetes website (lillydiabetes.co.uk). The complainant provided a screenshot of what looked like the homepage for the website and noted that the reader was presented with two options – to declare that he/she was a health professional in the UK or that he/she was a patient in the UK; there was nothing on the website for the general public....

Breach Clause(s): 9.1, 26.1, 28.1

No breach Clause(s): 2

Applicable Code: 2019

Received: 07 October 2019

Completed: 07 February 2020

ViiV Healthcare UK Ltd alleged that Gilead Sciences Europe Ltd had breached its undertaking given in Case AUTH/3137/12/18 by continuing to use the claim that Biktarvy (bictegravir/emtrictabine/tenofovir) was ‘Better tolerated than DTG [dolutegravir] – containing regimens’. Biktarvy was used in the treatment of adults infected with human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1). ViiV promoted Juluca (dolutegravir/rilpivirne) for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults. ViiV noted that the claim at issue was the subject of an unsuccessful appeal...

Breach Clause(s): 2, 9.1, 29

Applicable Code: 2019

Received: 21 November 2019

Completed: 29 January 2020

A complainant who described him/herself as a concerned UK health professional, complained about claims on the Feraccru (ferric maltol) website. Feraccru was used to treat adults with iron deficiency; it had been marketed by Shield Therapeutics PLC. Norgine Pharmaceuticals Limited became the marketing authorization holder in February 2019. The complainant noted that the claim that Feraccru was well tolerated would reassure clinicians although the summary of product characteristics (SPC) did not give the same level of...

Breach Clause(s): 7.2, 7.4, 26.1

No breach Clause(s): 3.2, 7.2

Applicable Code: 2019

Received: 26 July 2019

Completed: 28 January 2020

A study published online in the British Medical Journal (12 September 2018) was entitled ‘Compliance with requirement to report results on the EU Clinical Trials Register: cohort study and web resource’ (Goldacre et al 2018). The study objectives included assessing compliance rates with the European Commission’s requirement that all trials on the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) posted results to the registry within 12 months of completion (final compliance date 21 December 2016). The study objectives...

No breach Clause(s): Outwith the scope of the Code

Applicable Code: 2016

Received: 12 September 2018

Completed: 22 January 2020

A study published online in the British Medical Journal (12 September 2018) was entitled ‘Compliance with requirement to report results on the EU Clinical Trials Register: cohort study and web resource’ (Goldacre et al 2018). The study objectives included assessing compliance rates with the European Commission’s requirement that all trials on the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) posted results to the registry within 12 months of completion (final compliance date 21 December 2016). The study objectives...

Applicable Code: 2016

Received: 12 September 2018

Completed: 22 January 2020

A health professional complained about information on the Disclosure UK database. The complainant had raised matters previously regarding data for 2017 posted by Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited and these were considered in Case AUTH/3141/12/18. That case had been appealed. Following notification of the outcome of the Panel’s ruling in that case, the complainant noted that there was a further incorrect entry on Disclosure UK. The complainant stated that he/she was disappointed that, despite the efforts...

Breach Clause(s): 2, 7.2, 9.1, 24.1

No breach Clause(s): 2, 9.1, 29

Applicable Code: 2019

Received: 14 August 2019

Completed: 20 January 2020

An individual, who described him/herself as a concerned health professional, alleged that the Jinarc (tolvaptan) training website was promotional but did not meet the Code requirements for promotional material. Otsuka Pharmaceuticals (UK) Limited marketed Jinarc which was indicated in certain patients with chronic kidney disease. The complainant noted that the website provided training on the use of Jinarc for UK health professionals and mentioned the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) implying that the MHRA...

No breach Clause(s): 4.1, 9.5

Applicable Code: 2019

Received: 19 June 2019

Completed: 09 January 2020

A pharmacist in a medicines optimisation team, complained that in a letter (ref UK-CPL-121-008), Colonis Pharma Limited had blatantly promoted off-label use of Melatonin 1mg/ml Oral Solution. The medicine was only indicated for the short-term treatment of jet-lag in adults but there was hardly any reference to that in the letter. The detailed response from Colonis is given below. The Panel noted that the licensed indication for Melatonin 1mg/ml Oral Solution, ‘for short-term treatment of jet-lag in...

Breach Clause(s): 2, 3.2, 9.1

Applicable Code: 2019

Received: 13 August 2019

Completed: 20 December 2019

Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Limited, voluntarily admitted that overall survival (OS) results published in a promotional article was incorrect. The material at issue, published online and in the hard copy version of Urology News, was about the combination of Opdivo (nivolumab) and Yervoy (ipilimumab) for the first line treatment of adults with intermediate/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma. As Paragraph 5.6 of the Constitution and Procedure required the Director to treat a voluntary admission as a complaint, the...

Breach Clause(s): 7.2

Applicable Code: 2019

Received: 21 August 2019

Completed: 20 December 2019

About 1212 result(s)