The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7468 p253
8 September 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

  Acrobat Reader

News summary

AstraZeneca and ApoPharma discredit industry

Promotional material sponsored by AstraZeneca and distributed with the 20 January 2007 issue of The Pharmaceutical Journal broke the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry's code of practice in seven respects, the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority has ruled

Primarily, the PMCPA ruled that the 12-page insert about rosuvastatin (Crestor) brought discredit on, and reduced confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry. This is the most serious criticism of promotional material possible under the code and always results in the ruling being advertised to draw attention to it (pA6, facing p255)

In addition to bringing discredit on the pharmaceutical industry, the PMCPA ruled that:

• the insert failed to include necessary prescribing information

• AZ failed to ensure that all claims in the insert were accurate, balanced, fair, unambiguous and based on up-to-date evidence

• claims were made that could not be substantiated

• the company failed to encourage the rational use of rosuvastatin

• AZ had failed to maintain high standards

• promotional material and activities had been disguised

The ABPI code of practice does not prevent company sponsorship of material about medicines, provided there is a strictly arm’s-length relationship between the company and the authors with no company input into the content. The PMCPA found that this had not been the case because the insert had been AZ’s idea and the company had paid its two authors — a pharmacist and a GP — to write it and had paid for it to be distributed with The Journal. The authors had held full editorial control over the content of the insert, but AZ took the final decision whether or not to publish it.

The PMCPA recognised that the insert was not a supplement for which The Journal’s editor would have been responsible.

The PMCPA also found another company — ApoPharma — guilty of bringing discredit on, and reducing confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry because it re-used in an advertisement a claim that had previously been found to be in breach of the code of practice.