The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7470 p325
22 September 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 40K, Acrobat Reader

• Sponsored inserts (3)
• Dose administration aids
• White Paper
• Prescribing
• 100-hour pharmacies
• Retention fees
• The Society (2)

Letters to the Editor

Sponsored inserts

Welcome comments

From Mrs H. P. Simmonds

The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) welcomes comments published in the editorial of The Journal (8 September, p248) that said that it is not the PJ’s responsibility to decide whether inserts are promotional or not.

It is the responsibility of the pharmaceutical company to decide how material fits in with the requirements of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry’s code of practice for the pharmaceutical industry.

One of the PMCPA’s roles is to provide informal guidance. Detailed case reports and other guidance are available online

The code requires pharmaceutical company sponsorship to be declared so that readers are aware of the company’s role. This does not devalue sponsored material but does ensure that it is read in the proper context.

As stated by Steven Gray in his article discussing the AstraZeneca cases in the same issue (p263), the PMCPA can only rule on allegations made. There is a process whereby matters not the subject of complaint can be raised on a formal basis with companies but this was not used in the cases to which he refers.

Mr Gray’s article refers to the PMCPA constitution and procedure in relation to a possible reason as to why AstraZeneca appealed. In my experience companies appeal rulings because they consider that the initial ruling is incorrect and not for tactical reasons as suggested by Mr Gray.

The constitution and procedure states that if a complaint is received about a matter closely similar to one which has been the subject of a previous adjudication, it may proceed at the discretion of the director if new evidence is provided or if the passage of time or a change in circumstances raises doubts as to whether the same decision would be made.

The director would normally allow a complaint to proceed if it had not been the subject of appeal to the Code of Practice Appeal Board. If a further complaint about the inserts that raises new matters or provides new evidence is received then it would have to be considered.

Heather Simmonds
Director
Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority

Comments are naive and damaging

From Ms B. E. Pawulska, MRPharmS

Comments in the leading article in The Pharmaceutical Journal (8 September, p248) comparing the agenda of the National Prescribing Centre to that of pharmaceutical companies are naive and damaging. The NPC has no vested interests — its income does not rely on promotion of products.

Naturally it questions the content of literature produced by the pharmaceutical industry; that is part of its job, a job often made difficult by the less than transparent activities of Astra Zeneca and similar.

Berating pharmacists for not disclosing “close links” to the NPC is laughable — most pharmacists working in primary care could be described as having “close links”, by virtue of the fact that the NPC is one of few, if not the only, national organisation supplying unbiased, disinterested information on medicines.

Barbara Pawulska
Emsworth, Hampshire

Am I missing something?

From Ms M. Yassaie, MRPharmS

I would like to make three points. First, am I getting it wrong? I believe that all pharmacists who are working for primary and secondary care in the NHS are associated with the National Prescribing Centre.

I am not an NPC trainer, but I attend its training and take its advice on board because it is promoting appropriate, effective, evidence-based and cost-effective medicines management. Does that mean I should also declare that I have association with the NPC each time I write to the PJ?

Secondly I am not ashamed of having the task of keeping the NHS drug bill under control. I am proud of it. Why should we not look after public money and encourage appropriate and cost effective medicines management?

It is not an accurate assessment of the situation to compare the jobs of people who put the public interest at heart and look after public cash (any pharmacist who works for NHS) with pharmaceutical companies, which have the opposing task of selling and therefore taking public money.

Finally I personally would like to know when an article published in the PJ is “promotional” or “sponsored educational material”, and it is in the interest of credibility of The Journal to make this clear.

Then again, maybe I am missing something here.

Maha Yassaie
Strategic Lead Medicine Management
Berkshire West Primary Care Trust

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Dose administration aids)