Key Topic 2: Working with the media

In this section we will consider these key requirements for working with the media through some relevant case examples:

  • Material for the media must be factual, accurate, and balanced
  • The content, style and presentation of media materials must be non promotional
  • The subject matter and information given in media materials must be ‘newsworthy’ to the intended audience

Here they are considered in detail:

Back to Key Topics Menu

Accurate?

In 2010 AstraZeneca issued a press release for Nexium (a proton pump inhibitor) to announce a new indication for the product –the prevention of gastric/duodenal ulcer rebleeding. The press release referred to use of Nexium in patients taking aspirin and encouraged consumers to talk to their doctors about reducing risk of peptic ulcers if they were taking aspirin. At the time the product was not licensed for reducing risk of ulcers in aspirin users.

The Australian Monitoring Committee made a complaint that this was promoting an unlicensed indication to the public. In addition, when the case was investigated, it was discovered that the new licensed indication (prevention of rebleeding) had not been quoted accurately. This licence only applied following therapeutic endoscopy and this important information had been left out.

AZ was found to be in breach of the Australian Code for misquoting the new indication, off licence promotion and inaccurate information in the press release, and was fined $75,000.

 

Newsworthy?

Jansen –Cilag issued 2 consumer press releases in Australia to announce the availability of a new product – Concerta for the treatment of ADHD. The first press release achieved ‘limited engagement’ from the media because it unfortunately coincided with the Samoan tsunami tragedy. Therefore Janssen-Cilag issued a second release with essentially the same information.

Janssen Cilag was found in breach of the Australian Code because the second release was not justified. In other words it was no longer ‘newsworthy’. The company received a fine of $15,000.

 

Promotional?

Takeda placed a news story on its website about the fact that its product Mepact (mifamurtide) had not been approved by the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK. The news story was available to the general public. The news story contained the following phrases about Mepact:

‘NICE says no to life saving treatment for childhood bone cancer’
‘improve survival in childhood cancer’
‘save an additional eight lives each year’

 

It also stated that Takeda wanted to ensure that suitable young patients diagnosed with osteosarcoma were ‘provided with a fighting chance’.

 

Which of the following do you agree with?

  • If the statements about Mepact are factually accurate then this newstory is approvable
  • These statements constitute advertising of Mepact to the public
  • These statements would be likely to encourage members of the public to ask their health professional to prescribe Mepact
Check answer Ruling
×

Ruling

This was the subject of a complaint in the UK and was found to be in breach of the Code because:

  • the strong claims would be likely to encourage the public to request a prescription for Mepact
  • the nature of the claims and their placement on a public website constituted an advertisement for Mepact to the public
  • to describe Mepact as a ‘life saving treatment’ meant that high standards had not been maintained.
 

Interactions with journalists

A PR company in the UK acting on behalf of Janssen Cilag sent an email to journalists inviting them to attend a public National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) appeal hearing. The email said:

“As it is possible that the hearing will take up most of the day, and we understand that your time is valuable, we are able to offer £200 (Euro 293) if you wish to attend”

 
 

Which of the following do you agree with?

  • If this payment is considered ‘fair market value’ for a journalist then it is acceptable
  • Offering journalists a payment purely to attend a meeting is unacceptable
  • Paying journalists fair market value to contribute to an advisory board is acceptable
  • The company (Janssen Cliag) is not responsible for these arrangements as they were made by a third party
Check answer Ruling
×

Ruling

This case came to the attention of the PMCPA in the UK because it was the subject of an article in a public journal referring to a ‘media cash carrot’. NICE condemned the offer of payments to journalists in their own press release – their Chairman stated ‘it is disappointing that a PR firm finds it necessary to offer financial incentives for journalists to attend NICE public appeal hearings’.

Janssen Cilag were held responsible for the actions of their PR agency and were found to be in breach of the UK Code. Among the breaches, they were found in breach of clause 2 – bring discredit upon, and reducing confidence in the pharmaceutical industry. They appealed this ruling and were unsuccessful.

 

Use of spokespersons

Sanofi issued a consumer press release in Australia announcing the availability of their product Actonel EC (enteric coated risedronate) for osteoporosis. Within the press release was the wording “another option to help reduce the rates of fracture and early death associated with this insidious disease”. A spokesperson (a healthcare professional and an expert in osteoporosis) was identified within the release.

As a result of this press release, a radio interview was set up with the spokesperson. No payment was made to the spokesperson by Sanofi, but after the interview their agency sent him a gift of a bottle of wine and some chocolates.

During the 7 minute radio interview, the spokesperson mentioned the brand name Actonel 15 times. One of the statements he made was:

 

“without the special enteric coating and calcium binding agent of Actonel EC, eating breakfast or even drinking a simple cup of coffee of glass of juice at the same time would significantly reduce the absorption of the medication...” and “With Actonel EC people with osteoporosis requiring a bisphosphonate tablet can still have breakfast and have optimal fracture protection”

 

Which of the following do you agree with? - hint: you can view the Actonel SmPC: Actionel SmPC

  • The interview constitutes promotion to the public the repeated referral to the brand name and claims for ‘optimal fracture protection’ constitute promotion
  • The gift of wine and chocolate is acceptable because it is not expensive and was given by the agency rather than Sanofi companies are responsible for the actions of their agencies and this gift would not be allowed under Australian (and many other country) regulations
  • The gift to the spokesperson could influence his advocacy of the product in the interview this was deemed not to be the case as the gift was made after the interview. However any connections of the spokesperson with Sanofi or potential conflicts of interest should be declared
  • The statement in the press release is not approvable Actonel is not licensed for reduction in deaths associated with osteoporosis
Check answer Ruling
×

Ruling

This interview was found to be in breach of the Australian Code for promotion to the public and Sanofi received a fine of $40,000