Amid its two-year suspension from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, the U.K.’s pharma trade group, following a series of breaches of the organization’s code of practice, Novo Nordisk is once again in hot water with the U.K.’s marketing watchdog.
This time around, the ABPI’s Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) dove into a handful of media articles written about the Danish pharma’s weight-loss drugs, ultimately concluding that one of the articles breached several clauses of the code. Among those, following an appeal, was the agency’s most serious, Clause 2, designating that a drugmaker’s actions are responsible for “bringing discredit upon, and reducing confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry.”
According to the PMCPA’s case report, the original complaint was brought by a member of the public, who accused Novo of “advertising its prescription only medicines to the public as a safe way to lose weight without risks.” The complainant cited five articles, all from 2022 and all but one of which were published in the British newspaper The Times, that allegedly featured that sort of improper advertisement about Novo’s Wegovy and Ozempic.
Upon reviewing the articles and requesting information from the Big Pharma about its participation in them, the PMCPA concluded that Novo had no relevant involvement in four of the five stories, all of which were written by journalists unrelated to the company, and without Novo’s input as to their development or content.
The remaining article, however, was a Sunday Times interview with Novo CEO Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen and therefore did have direct involvement from the company. In its review of Novo’s materials regarding the interview, the PMCPA found that the company’s communications team had briefed Jørgensen ahead of the interview—emphasizing that “prescription-only medicines could not be promoted to the public,” per a briefing document—and also contacted the journalist after the interview to request two amendments to Jørgensen’s answers, which were made.
During the investigation process, per the PMCPA, Novo acknowledged that some of the “positive statements” made by Jørgensen in the article may qualify as promotion of Novo’s weight-loss drugs and may inspire readers to request the drugs from their healthcare providers, both of which would put it in breach of separate sections of the agency’s Clause 26. Those statements included Jørgensen saying, “The most important thing is that now there is finally hope for people living with obesity—that you can get help to lose weight and avoid some of the complications.”
The company also acknowledged that certain statements may have incorrectly implied that Wegovy is suitable for anyone with obesity, a misleading statement that would put it in breach of Clause 6.1.
Based on those potential missteps, the PMCPA said Novo “considered that it did not maintain high standards,” qualifying it for yet another breach, of Clause 5.1, and acknowledged that the agency might pursue a Clause 2 breach ruling, too.
In its initial ruling, the agency’s panel concluded that while Novo did not breach the code in the four articles in which it had no direct involvement, the Sunday Times article did put it in breach of Clauses 26.1, 26.2 and 5.1. The panel dismissed the allegations around Clause 6.1 and did not pursue a Clause 2 breach, noting that “the matters raised were adequately covered” by the other rulings.
The complainant appealed the decision, however, pushing the PMCPA to reconsider a violation of both of the remaining clauses for that article. In their appeal, they suggested that Novo “could have refused to allow the interview to be published and take legal action to defend itself and the reputation of the industry.”
In its response, Novo denied a Clause 2 breach and said, “We had no influence or control over publication of the article beyond the interview that was provided and certainly could not have prevented its publication.”
Ultimately, however, the PMCPA’s Appeal Board agreed with the complainant’s call for further sanctions around the Sunday Times article—though it once again dismissed a renewed push for a scolding on the other four articles. In its Clause 6.1 ruling, the board noted how Novo had initially acknowledged that it may have breached the code and went on to determine that some statements in the interview may indeed have been misleading to readers.
As for Clause 2, the board considered that Novo had “inadequate control of the interaction with the media outlet” and “should have exercised more caution and control” over the CEO’s interview, as Jørgensen had only been given a verbal briefing beforehand and nobody from the U.K. communications team was present during the interview. Between that and the statements found to be in breach of other portions of the code, the agency concluded that Novo’s involvement in the article had indeed reduced confidence in and discredited the industry, in a breach of Clause 2.
In a statement sent to Fierce Pharma Marketing, a Novo spokesperson said, “We accept the ruling. We take our responsibility to the public extremely seriously and have improved processes globally to appropriately handle any UK media activities. Above all, we remain committed to following the ABPI Code of Practice and to upholding the highest ethical standards required by the pharmaceutical industry.”