Teva has found out the hard way about the scope of the U.K. advertising code. The drugmaker refuted complaints about the alleged promotion of its drugs in an earned media article, only for the panel to rule it responsible for the content and find it guilty of discrediting the pharma industry.
The case centers on an article in P3 Pharmacy. In 2020, the U.K. publication interviewed a senior leader at Teva and published an article based on the conversation. Two years later, a complainant alleged that the article was promotional and failed to meet mandatory requirements, sparking an investigation by the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA).
According to the complaint, the article breached the code because it failed to include a black triangle for the migraine drug Ajovy, overstated the breadth of the license for relapsing multiple sclerosis therapy Copaxone and otherwise lacked mandatory information.
Teva refuted all allegations, arguing that neither it nor a third party under its instruction or payment was responsible for the article. While Teva saw the questions in advance and fact-checked the article, it said the publication was outside of the scope of the code because neither it nor one of its third parties organized the piece. P3 Pharmacy initiated and executed the project.
That argument held little sway with the panel. As the panel told Teva, complaints about articles in the press are “judged upon the acceptability of the information provided by the pharmaceutical company rather than the final published article.” Teva did not dispute the quotes, and the panel ruled that the interview came within the scope of the code.
Teva’s argument that the article was about the senior leader’s experience in the industry and hot topics in pharmacy and reimbursement failed to persuade the panel either. The questions sent to Teva before the interview included a query about the development of a pre-filled pen version of Ajovy, and the senior leader commented on that product and Copaxone in the course of the conversation.
The PMCPA panel ruled that the article breached seven subclauses of the code. The failure to include a black triangle for Ajovy, a violation of Clause 4.10, led to an eighth breach related to bringing discredit upon and reducing confidence in the pharmaceutical industry. The panel considered two other alleged breaches of the discredit clause but ruled in Teva’s failure on those points.