Pharmaceutical Code of Practice – Are You Aware of Your Responsibilities?
Acorn Regulatory assists companies in maintaining compliance with a variety of codes of conduct. In this article, we look at the issues surrounding the code of practice that governs pharmaceutical companies in the UK and Ireland. The respective IPHA and ABPI codes cover the promotion of medicines for prescribing to both health professionals and other relevant decision-makers.
Overview of the Code of Practice
The Irish pharmaceutical industry is governed by the IPHA (Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association) code. The UK is governed by the ABPI (Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry) code. The organisations and their attendant codes have been in force and existence for many years, and year on year, they both publish updates and addendum’s to the existing code and further clarify and expand on what is the expected behaviour and standard for all companies (member or not) to follow.
Treatment of Competitors
One of the first recommendations to the code was to ‘not disparage your competitors’ and Clause 5.5 of the IPHA code (2017) clearly sets out the parameters ‘ in presenting a comparison, care must be taken to ensure that it does not mislead by distortion, by undue emphasis and by omission or in any other way’. The ABPI code (2017) has a similar brief in clause 8.2 ‘the health professionals and the clinical and scientific opinions of health professionals must not be disparaged’.
A case in the UK (2016) found a company promoting an antipsychotic in breach of the ABPI code for clause 8.2 and also for Clause 9.1 (high standards had not been maintained). The company organised a series of high-quality educational meetings for clinical psychiatrists and related professionals- known as the ‘HOPE’ programme. These meetings had been held since 2014. The overall aim was to inform, educate and encourage discussion among an audience of peers. The meeting content was highly scientific and included efficacy and safety data presentations on their own treatment, as well as competitor treatments. One speaker in a panel of seven speakers presented on the various treatments prescribed currently for schizophrenia, including the company’s product. The presenter (who was not an employee of the company) made a remark when presenting competitors’ data that was construed to be disparaging to the company’s competitors and in breach of the code. The company apologised on behalf of their speaker and for any unintended consequences. The presentation had been developed by a speaker who had attended a rehearsal and briefing with all other speakers prior to the meeting. The company stated that this was a one-off comment, at a single meeting in a series of high-quality educational events that had been well received by clinicians. All content and material had been reviewed and certified and none contained or advocated anything which disparaged another product or competitor.
The ABPI panel noted that this was clearly a promotional meeting. They considered the comments made by the presented and found that they did disparage those health professionals and their clinical and scientific opinions. They ruled a breach of 8.2 and 9.1.
Adhering to the Code
Companies strive to do what is right and compliant under the IPHA or ABPI code. There is a continuous effort and cost to streamline their processes and resources to make sure they are in line with the code and its complexities. The company referenced above were found in breach for something they tried to control to the best of their abilities, from an internal perspective. All presentations had been approved from an internal approval process, as well as a rehearsal and briefing with speakers prior to the event.
The incident above brings up many questions:
- What controls can be put in place to manage the actions and utterances of a third party speaker?
- Should responsibility for comments be the responsibility of the company, or individual responsibility, and a claim made before a meeting commences?
- Should this become mandatory under the code to avoid a ‘slip of the tongue’ in the future?
This was a difficult lesson for the aforementioned company to learn, but one in which other companies should also take leave from, and start to think about what processes and controls can be put in place to avoid this breach for them.
We Can Help
Acorn Regulatory can advise your company on compliance issues and ensure that your company avoids unnecessary breaches of the relevant codes of practice. Contact us today if you would like to discuss this further. Call us on 00353 52 61 76 706 or complete your details below and we will get back to you.
Further Reading from Acorn Regulatory
Clinical studies are intended to advance animal health care by identifying the most effective therapies and practices for a given condition, or by advancing our basic understanding of the disease. Much like a clinical study in the human population, a veterinary clinical study involves research that gains information from animal patients.
We have been tracking the role of social media in pharmacovigilance in social media since 2015. We first wrote about it here. 5 years on, we are glad to say that the field has moved on substantially in terms of research into the practical applications of social media in Pharmacovigilance. Regulatory guidance for the industry, however, has yet to be updated.
Acorn Regulatory is a leading regulatory, pharmacovigilance and clinical consultancy company headquartered in Ireland. Our Clinical & Medical team works with the largest and the leading companies in life sciences to assist them in bringing their products to market. The team, led by Dr. Danica Cvetkovic, has written extensively on the issue. In the latest e-book from Acorn Regulatory, we look at the best and most popular articles from our Clinical & Medical team.
Writing a risk management plan (RMP) for the first time can be a daunting task. The RMP is a legally binding regulatory document submitted to health authorities and is a mandatory commitment for all Marketing Authorisation Holders in the European Union. The goal of the RMP is to improve the benefit-risk balance of a medicinal product by combining risk assessment and risk minimisation. The RMP is a complex document, but with the revised RMP module (March 2017), comes the revised EU template for RMPs (rev 2 format) and the RMP is now structured in a clear manner with less repetition and with attention to detail.