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

  A ‘group of concerned employees’ complained that Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd (based in the UK) was unable to properly manage updates to the summary of product characteristics (SPC) and prescribing information for Jinarc (tolvaptan).  Jinarc was used in certain patients with chronic kidney disease. The complainants alleged that the latest SPC and prescribing information update for Jinarc took place on 21 December 2018, and emails sent out for action/information indicated that the process was in chaos. ...

Applicable Code: 2016

Received: 24 January 2019

Completed: 16 October 2019

An anonymous, contactable health professional complained about Novo Nordisk and its employees with regard to alleged insider trading and promoting and selling Novo Nordisk’s weight-loss prescription only medicine, Saxenda (liraglutide), directly to the public. The complainant stated that a pharmaceutical wholesale company recently approached him/her through his/her clinic, not realising that he/she had his/her own partnership in a wholesale company. The wholesale company had been trying to poach some of the complainant’s established customers who provided...

Applicable Code: 2016

Received: 18 March 2019

Completed: 14 October 2019

The complaint concerned the frequency with which Astellas representatives contacted a pharmacist with regard to Betmiga (mirabegron), used in the symptomatic treatment of patients with overactive bladder syndrome. Mirabegron had not been approved for use in the local publicly-funded pharmaceutical service but the pharmacist noted that he/she regularly got telephone calls from Astellas representatives asking how it could be approved.  The pharmacist had not logged the times and dates of the calls, but he/ she had...

Applicable Code: 2016

Received: 10 April 2019

Completed: 02 October 2019

A complainant, who described him/herself as a concerned UK health professional, complained about a LinkedIn post from the Grünenthal Group.  The post, which had been ‘liked’ by a named individual, read: ‘We’re acquiring the global rights for Qutenza [capsaicin], a highly effective pain product which complements our existing pain portfolio and is a real alternative to the current standard of care’. The complainant noted that the LinkedIn post in question would have been sent to health...

Applicable Code: 2016

Received: 19 March 2019

Completed: 02 October 2019

A complainant who described him/herself as a concerned UK health professional complained about an email from Orion Pharma UK, sent via a named healthcare publication.  The email urged recipients to watch a video on ‘Medicines optimisation and the clinical challenges in respiratory care’.  It was stated at the top of the email that ‘This campaign has been produced by [a named healthcare publisher] with funding from Orion Pharma’. The complainant stated that the email contained promotional...

Applicable Code: 2016

Received: 23 March 2019

Completed: 02 October 2019

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant who described him/herself as a health professional complained about a ‘Meetings Highlights’ document with the disclaimer ‘This newsletter has been funded by an unrestricted educational grant provided by PharmaMar S.A.  PharmaMar S.A has not been involved in the production, review or distribution of this material’.  The document was on the website of the British Sarcoma Group (BSG).  The complainant alleged that PharmaMar had been involved in the preparation of the material...

Applicable Code: 2016

Received: 21 September 2017

Completed: 18 September 2019

An anonymous health professional complained about the questions asked of the speakers by a Sandoz medical science liaison (MSL) at a Sandoz-sponsored meeting.  Sandoz marketed the biosimilars Zessly (infliximab) and Hyrimoz (adalimumab). The complainant explained that in February 2019, he/she attended an educational event run by Sandoz in Glasgow and connected to a venue in London via a video link.  The event was advertised as non-promotional and health professionals spoke about diseases, treatment and therapeutic drug...

No breach Clause(s): 2, 9.1, 12.1, 15.2, 18.1

Applicable Code: 2019

Received: 18 March 2019

Completed: 18 September 2019

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: 18 September 2019

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: 18 September 2019

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: 21 November 2018

Completed: 18 September 2019

About 1212 result(s)