Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation Skip to main content
Sign In
Restrict your results by using the refiners below:
Search

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Narrow Your Results:​

 

 

AUTH/2987/10/17- Anonymous v Shire 362517/12/2018 07:51:35According to the complainant, Shire failed to take action when this issue was raised by The complainant alleged that Shire had also tried to circumvent the NICE process because STS_ListItem_PublishingPageshttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk17/12/2018 07:51:35htmlFalseaspx1616~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/2527/8/12 - Anonymous v Shire 323306/06/2014 14:17:27The complainant alleged that Shire had instructed the MSLs to create ‘noise’ in the market The complainant further alleged that Shire also encouraged specialists to try the medicine STS_ListItem_PublishingPageshttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk06/06/2014 14:17:27htmlFalseaspx1616~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
2987 Nov 20185062613/12/2018 12:41:59According to the complainant, Shire failed to take action when this issue was raised by The complainant alleged that Shire had also tried to circumvent the NICE process because STS_ListItem_DocumentLibraryhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FDocuments%2F2017%2F2987%20Nov%202018%2Epdf&action=interactivepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FDocuments%2F2017%2F2987%20Nov%202018%2Epdf&action=imagepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Documents/20170http://www.pmcpa.org.uk13/12/2018 12:41:59pdfFalsepdf1515~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_PDF.js
AUTH/1872/7/06 - Hospital Chief Pharmacist/Director v Shire5209816/03/2012 09:06:34When writing to Shire, the Authority asked it to respond in relation to Clauses 2, 9.1 and 22 of the Code in addition to Clauses 7.2 and 7.3 mentioned by the complainant STS_ListItem_DocumentLibraryhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FDocuments%2F2006%2F1872%20November%2Epdf&action=interactivepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FDocuments%2F2006%2F1872%20November%2Epdf&action=imagepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Documents/20060http://www.pmcpa.org.uk16/03/2012 09:06:34pdfFalsepdf1515~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_PDF.js
2527 Feb 20135206014/03/2013 15:36:34The complainant alleged that Shire had instructed the MSLs to create ‘noise’ in the market The complainant further alleged that Shire also encouraged specialists to try the medicine STS_ListItem_DocumentLibraryhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FDocuments%2F2013%2F2527%20Feb%202013%2Epdf&action=interactivepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FDocuments%2F2013%2F2527%20Feb%202013%2Epdf&action=imagepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Documents/20130http://www.pmcpa.org.uk14/03/2013 15:36:34pdfFalsepdf1515~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_PDF.js
AUTH/2669/11/13 - Member of the public v Shire 335004/09/2014 11:21:08This was available via a website link and was referred to by the complainant The Panel noted Shire’s submission that one study was a Phase I study on healthy STS_ListItem_PublishingPageshttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk04/09/2014 11:21:08htmlFalseaspx1616~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/1862/7/06 - ProStrakan/Director v Shire268406/06/2014 14:14:35Case ref:ProStrakan/Director v Shire Description:Breach of undertaking Appeal:Appeals by respondent and complainant Review:Published in the STS_ListItem_PublishingPageshttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk06/06/2014 14:14:35htmlFalseaspx1616~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
2745 May 2015182328/05/2015 11:22:20Whilst the emails from Shire’s agent referred to its work ‘receiving sponsorship’ from Shire, it did not disclose that Shire would use the material promotionally before it STS_ListItem_DocumentLibraryhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FDocuments%2F2015%2F2745%20May%202015%2Epdf&action=interactivepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FDocuments%2F2015%2F2745%20May%202015%2Epdf&action=imagepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Documents/20150http://www.pmcpa.org.uk28/05/2015 11:22:20pdfFalsepdf1515~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_PDF.js
AUTH/2593/4/13 - Genzyme v Shire328206/06/2014 14:17:32because it had already requested that Shire stop using the incorrect material and Shire had already given a (qualified) undertaking to STS_ListItem_PublishingPageshttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk06/06/2014 14:17:32htmlFalseaspx1616~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
AUTH/2745/1/15 - Chief of Pharmacy v Shire 341205/06/2015 08:38:07Whilst the emails from Shire’s agent referred to its work ‘receiving sponsorship’ from Shire, it did not disclose that Shire would use the material promotionally before it STS_ListItem_PublishingPageshttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk05/06/2015 08:38:07htmlFalseaspx1616~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js

Restrict your results by using the refiners below:
Related links