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/2825/3/16 and AUTH/2826/3/16 - Janssen-Cilag v Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly 348511/12/2017 09:42:43Case ref:Janssen-Cilag v Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly Description:Promotion of Jardiance Appeal:Appeal by respondents Status STS_ListItem_PublishingPageshttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk11/12/2017 09:42:43htmlFalseaspx1616~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_WebPage.js
2864 Feb 2017211209/03/2017 14:29:43THE CODE ANONYMOUS, NON CONTACTABLE v BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM Engagement of a consultant and his The Panel noted that Boehringer Ingelheim’s first interaction with the named health STS_ListItem_DocumentLibraryhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FDocuments%2F2016%2F2864%20Feb%202017%2Epdf&action=interactivepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FDocuments%2F2016%2F2864%20Feb%202017%2Epdf&action=imagepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Documents/20160http://www.pmcpa.org.uk09/03/2017 14:29:43pdfFalsepdf1515~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_PDF.js
2000 May review218205/03/2012 15:26:28Public reprimand for Schwarz Pharma Schwarz Pharma has been publicly reprimanded by the Both complainants and respondents may appeal to the Code of Practice Appeal Board against STS_ListItem_DocumentLibraryhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FCode%20of%20Practice%20Reviews%2F1999%20to%20May%202006%2F2000%20May%20review%2Epdf&action=interactivepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FCode%20of%20Practice%20Reviews%2F1999%20to%20May%202006%2F2000%20May%20review%2Epdf&action=imagepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Code of Practice Reviews/1999 to May 20060http://www.pmcpa.org.uk05/03/2012 15:26:28pdfFalsepdf1515~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_PDF.js
2012 February Review78712/03/2012 16:44:22NUMBER 75 February 2012 CODE OF PRACTICE REVIEW The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority was established by The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry STS_ListItem_DocumentLibraryhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FCode%20of%20Practice%20Reviews%2F2012%20February%20Review%2Epdf&action=interactivepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FCode%20of%20Practice%20Reviews%2F2012%20February%20Review%2Epdf&action=imagepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Code of Practice Reviews/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk12/03/2012 16:44:22pdfFalsepdf1515~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_PDF.js
2012 May Review78806/07/2012 09:52:01NUMBER 76 May 2012 CODE OF PRACTICE REVIEW The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority was established by The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI STS_ListItem_DocumentLibraryhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FCode%20of%20Practice%20Reviews%2F2012%20May%20Review%2Epdf&action=interactivepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FCode%20of%20Practice%20Reviews%2F2012%20May%20Review%2Epdf&action=imagepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Code of Practice Reviews/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk06/07/2012 09:52:01pdfFalsepdf1515~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_PDF.js
2016 November Review80507/12/2016 14:51:01NUMBER 94 November 2016 CODE OF PRACTICE REVIEW The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice that the reports did not name the respondent company or the medicines involved where no STS_ListItem_DocumentLibraryhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FCode%20of%20Practice%20Reviews%2F2016%20November%20Review%2Epdf&action=interactivepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FCode%20of%20Practice%20Reviews%2F2016%20November%20Review%2Epdf&action=imagepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Code of Practice Reviews/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk07/12/2016 14:51:01pdfFalsepdf1515~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_PDF.js
2017 November Review81205/12/2017 14:07:43It was the respondent company’s responsibility to provide accurate information some complaints involved more than one respondent company, and some complaints do not STS_ListItem_DocumentLibraryhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FCode%20of%20Practice%20Reviews%2FNovember%202017%20Review%2Epdf&action=interactivepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FCode%20of%20Practice%20Reviews%2FNovember%202017%20Review%2Epdf&action=imagepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Code of Practice Reviews/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk05/12/2017 14:07:43pdfFalsepdf1515~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_PDF.js
2011 November Review78516/12/2011 15:05:29greatly helped in this regard if respondent companies ensured that all the necessary and As a respondent, you should try to put yourself in the Panel’s position and consider what STS_ListItem_DocumentLibraryhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FCode%20of%20Practice%20Reviews%2F2011%20November%20%20Review%2Epdf&action=interactivepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FCode%20of%20Practice%20Reviews%2F2011%20November%20%20Review%2Epdf&action=imagepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Code of Practice Reviews/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk16/12/2011 15:05:29pdfFalsepdf1515~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_PDF.js
2863 Feb 2017211109/03/2017 14:28:28The Panel noted Lilly’s submission that it had sponsored 13 meetings run by the training training courses varied according to whether Lilly was one of two sponsors or the sole STS_ListItem_DocumentLibraryhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FDocuments%2F2016%2F2863%20Feb%202017%2Epdf&action=interactivepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FDocuments%2F2016%2F2863%20Feb%202017%2Epdf&action=imagepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Documents/20160http://www.pmcpa.org.uk09/03/2017 14:28:28pdfFalsepdf1515~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_PDF.js
February 2017 Review5104613/03/2017 15:24:37NUMBER 95 February 2017 CODE OF PRACTICE REVIEW The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice When she started at the PMCPA respondent companies were notified of a complaint by STS_ListItem_DocumentLibraryhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FCode%20of%20Practice%20Reviews%2F2017%20February%20Review%20%2D%2Epdf&action=interactivepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%2Fcases%2FCode%20of%20Practice%20Reviews%2F2017%20February%20Review%20%2D%2Epdf&action=imagepreviewhttp://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Code of Practice Reviews/Forms/AllItems.aspx0http://www.pmcpa.org.uk13/03/2017 15:24:37pdfFalsepdf1515~sitecollection/_catalogs/masterpage/Display Templates/Search/Item_PDF.js

Restrict your results by using the refiners below:
Related links