AUTH/3473/2/21 - Complainant v Alnylam

Promotion of Oxlumo on LinkedIn

  • Received
    10 February 2021
  • Case number
    AUTH/3473/2/21
  • Applicable Code year
    2019
  • Completed
    12 August 2021
  • No breach Clause(s)
  • Breach Clause(s)
  • Sanctions applied
    Undertaking received
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal

Case Summary

A contactable complainant alleged that an agency LinkedIn post promoted Oxlumo (lumasiran) to the public; the post referred to the brand name and described Oxlumo as the first and only FDA-approved prescription medicine for infants, children and adults with primary hyperoxaluria type 1 (PH1). Oxlumo was marketed by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.

The detailed response from Alnylam is given below.

The Panel noted Alnylam’s submission that Alnylam Switzerland GmbH had commissioned an agency to assist in the preparation of an Oxlumo digital sales aid, however contrary to the agreement between the parties, the agency had sub-contracted another agency without the prior consent of Alnylam.

The Panel noted that the LinkedIn post referred to the Oxlumo digital sales aid produced for Alnylam; it had been posted by the sub-contracted agency’s LinkedIn page and shared by its owner. The LinkedIn post stated ‘In collaboration with [agency name], we’ve provided the design services to help Alnylam create a digital sales aid for their ____ brand (Swipe to find out)’ and included a preview to what appeared to be a two page document. It appeared to the Panel, from the screenshot provided, that the preview at the outset would have displayed the statement ‘the first and only FDA-approved prescription medication for infants, children and adults with primary hyperoxaluria type 1 (PH1)’. The preview could be clicked to view the full document or swiped to see a preview of another aspect of the detail aid; upon swiping right, it appeared that the preview would have displayed the Oxlumo brand logo, which included its non-proprietary name lumasiran, and its formulation ‘for injection 94.5mg/0.5mL’.

The Panel noted that as soon as it was notified of the complaint, Alnylam acted to ensure that the LinkedIn post was taken down forthwith. The sub-contracted agency acknowledged that the post had been published without the consent of either Alnylam or the agency contracted by Alnylam.

The Panel considered that the sub-contracted agency and its owner’s network was likely to have included individuals who were not health professionals or other relevant decision makers. The Panel considered that the proactive dissemination of the post, which contained the name and indication of Oxlumo, to those who were not health professionals or other relevant decision makers, constituted promotion of a prescription only medicine to the public. A breach of the Code was ruled as acknowledged by Alnylam.

The Panel noted Alnylam’s submission that the contract, which the Panel assumed was between Alnylam Switzerland GmbH and the agency for the development of the digital sales aid, not only forbade sub-contracting but also expressly forbade the use of Alnylam’s name or any associated sign, symbol or trademarks in any advertising or sales material, without Alnylam’s prior written consent. Based on Alnylam’s submission the Panel considered the contract should have prevented the LinkedIn posting and it was thus difficult to see what more Alnylam could have done. The Panel noted that Alnylam had not consented to the sub-contractor agency’s involvement and considered that the company had been very badly let down by third parties working on its behalf. The Panel, based on the evidence before it, ruled no breaches of the Code including of Clause 2.