AUTH/3353/5/20 - Complainant v UCB

Access to website test material

  • Received
    23 May 2020
  • Case number
    AUTH/3353/5/20
  • Applicable Code year
    2019
  • Completed
    29 March 2021
  • No breach Clause(s)
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal

Case Summary

A complainant who described him/herself as a concerned UK health professional alleged that online prescribing information for Neupro (rotigotine transdermal patch) was out of date. Neupro was indicated, among other things, as treatment for the signs and symptoms of early-stage idiopathic Parkinson’s disease.

The complainant provided a link to, and a screenshot of the prescribing information and noted that rhabdomyolysis, a potential severe side-effect, was not included. The complainant could not remember how he/she had accessed the site but that he/she had done so without using a special username so it would have been via a method available to anyone with an internet connection.

The detailed response from UCB is given below.

The Panel noted UCB’s submission that the only available route to access the page referred to by the complainant would have been by typing the specific URL link quoted by him/her into the browser. It appeared that although the URL provided by the complainant included the name of the website (mypatchandme), the page in question could not be accessed from that website. The Panel noted UCB’s submission that the URL link provided had not been communicated externally; the page referred to by the complainant was only intended for internal use to test specific functionality of the website.

The Panel noted UCB’s submission that the only materials shared externally featured the address www.mypatchandme.co.uk and that the health professional area of the website, accessed using a passcode, included up to date prescribing information. The prescribing information, dated February 2020, listed rhabdomyolysis as a possible side-effect. The Panel further noted UCB’s submission that the health professional area of the website had been certified and was the only area of the website intended for external viewing that included prescribing information.

The Panel queried how the complainant had become aware of, and had accessed, the prescribing information in question given that the webpage in question was only for internal use by UCB. Similarly, UCB had submitted that it was difficult to establish how the complainant had become aware of, and had accessed, the specific page. Despite the fact that the complainant had accessed out of date Neupro prescribing information, the Panel was sympathetic to the company’s submission that the specific URL link used by the complainant had not been communicated externally and that the page in question was for internal use only to test specific functionality. The Panel noted that the complainant could not recall how he/she had accessed the site but had that he/she had done so without a special username whereas UCB had submitted that the health professional area of the website had to be accessed using a passcode. This suggested that the complainant was not on the live mypatchandme website. Although the Panel was concerned that material that did not appear to meet the requirements of the Code had been accessed, that material had not been intended for use outside of UCB. Website analytics provided by UCB showed only two unique visitors and three visits to the page in question.

The Panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, the complainant had not shown that the page he/she had accessed was intended for health professionals. It seemed reasonable to consider it as material on an internal company-testing site. Although, as acknowledged by UCB, it was unfortunate that the test page had not been removed when the mypatchandme website went live, the Panel decided that what was now out of date prescribing information on an internal, test document, which could not be accessed from the mypatchandme website, did not amount to a breach of the Code as alleged. No breach of the Code was ruled.

The Panel noted that immediately after receiving the complaint UCB removed the page in question. In the Panel’s view, this case illustrated that companies should exercise extreme caution and wherever possible ensure that material, which was for internal use only, was either removed from the internet or securely hidden from view and thus inaccessible by people outside of the company.

Although the Panel was concerned that material that did not appear to meet the requirements of the Code had been accessed, given its comments and ruling above, it considered that in the specific circumstances of this case UCB had not failed to maintain high standards. No breach of the Code was ruled including of Clause 2.