AUTH/3310/2/20: Ex-employee v Indivior

Article in online trade journal

  • Received
    17 February 2020
  • Case number
    AUTH/3310/2/20
  • Applicable Code year
    2019
  • Completed
    21 May 2019
  • No breach Clause(s)
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal

Case Summary

An anonymous, non-contactable ex-employee of Indivior UK Limited, complained about an article which had appeared in the online version of Pharmaceutical Market Europe (PME), PMLiVE, December 2019. The article which was entitled ‘As the opioid crisis grabs the headlines, the search for safe treatments continues’ recorded an interview with an Indivior senior executive.

The complainant alleged that the online article, which was easily accessible by the medical profession and the public, was veiled as an industry piece but was in breach of the Code as it promoted unlicensed medicines.

The complainant alleged that there were a number of claims for unlicensed medicines and he/she assumed that the article was intended as part of a pre-marketing campaign. The article distribution was wide and not limited to industry.

The complainant alleged that the content of the article was disguised as informative but the details gave the impression of impending launch and therefore promotion with the inclusion of brand names and claims. These were made with a blatant disregard for the Code. The complainant alleged that such conduct was unacceptable and brought discredit to, and reduced confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry.

The detailed response from Indivior is given below.

The Panel considered that it was key to first note the context in which the article at issue had been published and then to note any use of the article by Indivior.

The Panel noted that PME was a trade journal aimed at senior/chief executives in the pharmaceutical industry; the PME media pack referred to the publication as ‘a trusted source of information for decision makers working in the pharma and biotech sectors’ and stated that over half of its 25,000 circulation (print and digital) went to those in the industry and the rest went to those in the service sector. The journal was not aimed at the public.

In the Panel’s view, trade journals existed to, amongst other things, discuss industry concerns and product innovations etc and it was important that they were able to do that. The article at issue had not been commissioned by Indivior but clearly the company had cooperated with the journalist who had written it. The company had agreed to the interview on the basis that the resulting article would instil greater awareness of the broader public health issues surrounding opioid dependence and inform Indivior’s peer group of the company’s leadership in addressing the opioid addiction and wider industry issues concerning efficiency in research and development and improvement of the access to new treatments. The company had not acted to increase awareness of the issues raised, or of its products, amongst health professionals or the public and, given the distribution of PME, would have no reasonable expectation of the article doing that. The Panel further noted Indivior’s submission that once published, it had not circulated or distributed the article outside the company and that those employees who had received a copy of the article were asked not to distribute it further or post it on any social media. The Panel considered that although it might be possible for a health professional or a member of the public to find the article via an Internet search, in doing so he/she would have accessed (‘pulled’) a publication solely intended for pharmaceutical industry executives.

The Panel considered that given the context in which the article at issue appeared ie in a journal aimed at executives in the pharmaceutical industry or those in the service sectors, and that Indivior had not distributed the article outside of the company, it did not promote prescription only medicines to the public and in that regard no breach of the Code was ruled. The Panel considered that as PME was not aimed at the public, the clause relating to information about prescription only medicines made available to the public was not relevant and so no breach of that clause was ruled.

Given its rulings above the Panel considered that there had not been a failure to maintain high standards and ruled no breach of the Code.

Clause 2 was a sign of particular censure and was reserved for such use. The Panel noted its rulings of no breach above and consequently ruled no breach of Clause 2.