AUTH/2332/7/10 - Anonymous v Grunenthal

Versatis poster presentation

  • Received
    12 July 2010
  • Case number
    AUTH/2332/7/10
  • Applicable Code year
    2008
  • Completed
    19 August 2010
  • Breach Clause(s)
    2, 7.2 and 9.1 (x2)
  • Sanctions applied
    Undertaking received
  • Additional sanctions
    Advertisement
  • Appeal
    No appeal
  • Review
    November 2010

Case Summary

An anonymous and non-contactable complainant complained about a poster entitled 'Localised Neuropathic Pain' which referred to the use of Versatis (lidocaine plaster), a product supplied by Grunenthal. At the base of the poster in small type was 'Sponsored by an unrestricted educational grant by Grunenthal UK Ltd'.

Versatis was indicated for the symptomatic relief of neuropathic pain associated with previous herpes zoster infections (post-herpetic neuralgia, PHN).

The complainant stated that: 'The enclosed poster is being used currently by our field-based teams at Grunenthal to promote the off-label use of versatis [sic]. Not only that, but the poster was written by employees of Grunenthal, a fact which is not acknowledged on the poster, and the cost comparison analysis is flawed and misleading'.

In its detailed response, given below, Grunenthal explained that the item provided by the complainant had the same copy as a poster submitted to the poster session of a meeting of the British Pain Society (BPS) and the accompanying handout.

The Panel noted that the material in this case was the same as that considered in Case AUTH/2330/7/10. The Panel noted that Grunenthal had paid for the printing of the poster and had helped with its submission to the BPS; the company stated that it had not had editorial control of the poster. A consultant pharmacist appeared to have led on the development of the poster. The Panel did not know if the consultant pharmacist had been paid by Grunenthal or had been otherwise retained by the company. A Grunenthal employee had provided information for the poster and was named as the second author although her position with Grunenthal was not declared. The Panel considered it was unacceptable of Grunenthal not to make it clear in its response that one of its employees was named as an author. The Panel considered that given that one of the named authors was a Grunenthal employee, the company could not dissociate itself from the content of the poster. It was difficult to see how in these circumstances Grunenthal could submit it had no editorial control.

The Panel noted that in Case AUTH/2330/7/10 it had decided that given Grunenthal's role in the production of the poster and its content, it was promotional material and thus covered by the Code. The Panel considered that this decision also applied to this case, Case AUTH/2332/7/10.

The Panel noted Grunenthal's submission that the poster had only been used at the BPS meeting and that it had not been used elsewhere. The Panel also noted that the handout had been prepared for the BPS meeting but had not been used. The handout had not been used either proactively or reactively by any Grunenthal staff.

The complainant alleged that the poster was being used by Grunenthal field-based staff to promote the off-label use of Versatis. This was denied by Grunenthal. There was no evidence that the poster was being used by Grunenthal field-based staff and in that regard the Panel ruled no breach of the Code. Following its consideration of this allegation the Panel noted that the use of the poster had been considered in Case AUTH/2330/7/10 and a breach had been ruled as the Panel considered that a claim promoted the product for an unlicensed indication.

 Turning back to the case now before it, the Panel then considered the allegations about the failure to acknowledge that one of the authors was a Grunenthal employee and about the cost comparison in relation to the poster displayed at the BPS.

The cost comparison analysis had not been considered in the previous case. The Panel noted that the cost comparison chart gave the daily, monthly and yearly costs per patient for gabapentin 1800mg/day, pregabalin 600mg/day and Versatis 1 patch/day. It appeared to the Panel that there were errors in the calculations.

The Panel also queried the choice of dose for each medicine in that, inter alia, it appeared that the costs were based on the maximum dose of pregabalin but not the maximum dose of Versatis or gabapentin as Neurontin. The poster had no data or mention about how the doses compared clinically. It suggested increasing the dose of gabapentin to 3600mg per day which was outside the licensed dose for at least one form of gabapentin (Winthrop). Further the Neurontin (gabapentin (Pfizer))SPC stated that in the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain such as painful diabetic neuropathy and PHN, efficacy and safety had not been examined in clinical treatment periods longer than 5 months. If a patient required dosing for longer than 5 months the physician should assess the patient's clinical status and determine the need for additional therapy.

The cost comparison used the symbol *** next to Versatis but no explanation was given.

The Panel examined the algorithm which appearedin the poster and again noted arithmetic mistakes. It was not clear whether the costs in the algorithm were taken from the cost comparison chart or vice versa. The Panel also queried the algorithm in that the data for gabapentin and pregabalin took account of patients changed to other therapies whereas all the Versatis patients continued with that medication. The algorithm did not mention the doses of the various medicines.

The Panel considered that the cost comparison was inaccurate and misleading. A breach of the Code was ruled. High standards had not been maintained in relation to the content of the poster and a breach was ruled.

The Panel noted that the employment status of the second author had not been clearly stated. In the Panel's view readers should have been able to view the poster knowing that the second author was a Grunenthal employee. The Panel considered that high standards had not been maintained in this regard and ruled a breach.

The Panel noted that Clause 2 was a sign of particular censure and reserved for such use. The Panel noted its decision that the poster was promotional material for which Grunenthal was responsible. The Panel noted its critical comments on the content of the poster and its ruling of a breach. The Panel was concerned that Grunenthal had certified the poster as promotional material knowing that it was to be displayed at the scientific poster session of the BPS Congress. The employment status of the second author had not been disclosed. Overall, the Panel considered that the company's activities reduced confidence in the pharmaceutical industry and thus ruled a breach of Clause 2.