Novo Nordisk has earnt yet another dressing down from the PMCPA. The U.K. self-regulatory body found fault with Novo’s support for U.K pharmacy chains’ weight management services, leading its panel to rule the drugmaker had brought discredit on the pharma industry.
An anonymous complainant, who described themselves as a health professional, triggered the latest of a series of assessments of Novo’s promotional practices. The complainant made claims related to Novo’s alleged promotion of Saxenda, its older GLP-1 weight-loss drug, and sponsorship of pharmacy chains. Novo largely denied its activities breached the marketing code but copped to wrongdoing in one area.
The Danish drugmaker admitted one of the pharmacy chains was not tagged as a healthcare organization in its finance system. The tagging error, which Novo blamed on “an inadvertent oversight,” resulted in the company failing to disclose its sponsorship of the pharmacy chain. Novo previously reported itself to the PMCPA after tagging errors led it to fail to disclose around $10 million in transfers to 150 bodies.
Novo’s reporting error resulted in one breach of the code. The PMCPA found other problems with the company’s ties to the pharmacies. One pharmacy chain received free items including NovoTwist needles and travel wallets. Novo’s contract with another pharmacy chain included needles, sharps bins and travel wallets. The panel ruled providing the items amounted to an inducement to prescribe Saxenda.
“In the panel’s view, the provision of the free-of-charge consumables to Pharmacy Chain C and Pharmacy Chain A was an integral part of the sponsorship contracts and considered that on balance the defrayment of the unavoidable cost in relation to the acquisition cost of the needles associated with a prescription of Novo Nordisk medicine(s), was therefore an inducement,” the PMCPA concluded.
The conclusion led the panel to rule that Novo had failed to maintain high standards. Having found Novo had breached two aspects of the code, the PMCPA turned its attention to the question of whether the company’s actions had brought discredit on the industry. Inducements are an example of a breach that can discredit the industry and the PMCPA duly added another strike against Novo.
After ruling on the case, the panel discussed its broader concerns with sponsorship contracts, querying whether the relationship was the appropriate arrangement. The panel said it is imperative for companies “to ensure that each activity or material is looked at in isolation and the most appropriate classification for each is determined.”
Finally, the PMCPA turned its attention to Novo’s repeat-offender status. Novo has been under audit since 2022. The panel said that, in general, “companies under audit had heightened diligence on code responsibilities.” As such, Novo’s “lack of clarity with respect to disclosure including miscategorizing Pharmacy Chain A during this time was a concern,” the panel concluded.