Novo Nordisk triumphs in UK probe of 'hyperbolic' Wegovy claims

Novo Nordisk has emerged unscathed from a probe into claims it ran an “orchestrated PR campaign” to shape the obesity debate in the U.K. The U.K. drug promotion watchdog carried out the investigation in response to media reports about Novo’s links to experts but found no evidence of wrongdoing.

Around one year ago, The Observer newspaper ran a series of articles with titles such as “‘Orchestrated PR campaign’: how skinny jab drug firm sought to shape obesity debate” and “Revealed: experts who praised new ‘skinny jab’ received payments from drug maker.” One article said Novo paid 21.7 million pounds sterling ($27.3 million) to health organizations and professionals, some of whom later praised Wegovy without making clear their links to the firm.

The U.K. Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) treated the articles as a complaint, because its director saw them as potential evidence that Novo may have breached the code. That led to an investigation into whether Novo breached various parts of the U.K. code, including a clause reserved for severe failings that bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry.

“The overarching concerns appeared to relate to transparency, conflicts of interests, use of hyperbolic language and inappropriate influence,” the PMCPA panel said. People with ties to Novo called Wegovy “one of the most powerful pharmaceutical tools” and “a game changer.”

Novo successfully defended itself against all the claims. The PMCPA panel found no evidence that Novo “was responsible for the strong statements” about Wegovy by people that the company had engaged to provide services. Novo didn’t direct journalists to interview any of the individuals, nor did it brief them on what they could or could not say if approached by a member of the press.

The panel noted “the general concerns raised in the articles” but concluded that Novo’s contracts with the organizations and individuals “appeared to refer to bona fide activities.” That conclusion led the panel to rule in Novo’s favor on other clauses. After tossing out specific accusations, the panel also sided with Novo on the broader question of whether it brought discredit on the pharma industry.