title: Pharmaceutical Industry Off-label Promotion and Self-regulation: A Document Analysis of Off-label Promotion Rulings by the United Kingdom Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority 2003-2012.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  European Union law prohibits companies from marketing drugs off-label. In the United Kingdom--as in some other European countries, but unlike the United States--industry self-regulatory bodies are tasked with supervising compliance with marketing rules. The objectives of this study were to (1) characterize off-label promotion rulings in the UK compared to the whistleblower-initiated cases in the US and (2) shed light on the UK self-regulatory mechanism for detecting, deterring, and sanctioning off-label promotion.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We conducted structured reviews of rulings by the UK self-regulatory authority, the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), between 2003 and 2012. There were 74 off-label promotion rulings involving 43 companies and 65 drugs. Nineteen companies were ruled in breach more than once, and ten companies were ruled in breach three or more times over the 10-y period. Drawing on a typology previously developed to analyse US whistleblower complaints, we coded and analysed the apparent strategic goals of each off-label marketing scheme and the practices consistent with those alleged goals. 50% of rulings cited efforts to expand drug use to unapproved indications, and 39% and 38% cited efforts to expand beyond approved disease entities and dosing strategies, respectively. The most frequently described promotional tactic was attempts to influence prescribers (n = 72, 97%), using print material (70/72, 97%), for example, advertisements (21/70, 30%). Although rulings cited prescribers as the prime target of off-label promotion, competing companies lodged the majority of complaints (prescriber: n = 16, 22%, versus companies: n = 42, 57%). Unlike US whistleblower complaints, few UK rulings described practices targeting consumers (n = 3, 4%), payers (n = 2, 3%), or company staff (n = 2, 3%). Eight UK rulings (11%) pertaining to six drugs described promotion of the same drug for the same off-label use as was alleged by whistleblowers in the US. However, while the UK cases typically related to only one or a few claims made in printed material, several complaints in the US alleged multifaceted and covert marketing activities. Because this study is limited to PMCPA rulings and whistleblower-initiated federal cases, it may offer a partial view of exposed off-label marketing.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The UK self-regulatory system for exposing marketing violations relies largely on complaints from company outsiders, which may explain why most off-label promotion rulings relate to plainly visible promotional activities such as advertising. This contrasts with the US, where Department of Justice investigations and whistleblower testimony have alleged complex off-label marketing campaigns that remain concealed to company outsiders. UK authorities should consider introducing increased incentives and protections for whistleblowers combined with US-style governmental investigations and meaningful sanctions. UK prescribers should be attentive to, and increasingly report, off-label promotion.
authors.affiliation: Department of Clinical Sciences, Division of Social Medicine and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Malmö University, Lund, Sweden.|Department of Gender Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
authors.forename: Andreas
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Vilhelmsson
authors.affiliation: Department of Social Science, Health and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: Courtney
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Davis
authors.affiliation: Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
authors.forename: Shai
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Mulinari
mesh_terms: D004345:Drug Industry / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D040541:Marketing / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000592:standards; D056687:Off-Label Use / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000592:standards; D055553:Prescription Drugs / Q000592:standards; D006113:United Kingdom; D014481:United States; D035642:Whistleblowing
chemical_list: D055553:Prescription Drugs
references.citation: BMJ. 2000 Jul 29;321(7256):259
references.pmid: 10915117
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2010 May 13;362(19):1832-9
references.pmid: 20463344
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1983 Jun 16;308(24):1457-63
references.pmid: 6406886
references.citation: Pharmacotherapy. 2008 Dec;28(12):1443-52
references.pmid: 19025425
references.citation: PLoS Med. 2007 Apr;4(4):e134
references.pmid: 17455990
references.citation: CMAJ. 1997 Feb 1;156(3):351-6
references.pmid: 9033415
references.citation: Int J Risk Saf Med. 2011;23(4):233-40
references.pmid: 22156088
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Oct;28(10):1368-75
references.pmid: 23558775
references.citation: Ann Oncol. 2003 Jan;14(1):42-7
references.pmid: 12488291
references.citation: Pharmacol Res. 2008 Nov-Dec;58(5-6):316-22
references.pmid: 18852048
references.citation: Lancet Oncol. 2008 Nov;9(11):1102-7
references.pmid: 19012859
references.citation: PLoS Med. 2011 Apr;8(4):e1000431
references.pmid: 21483716
references.citation: Nat Med. 2013 Jan;19(1):5
references.pmid: 23295992
references.citation: Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Jun;33(6):1014-23
references.pmid: 24889951
references.citation: Nat Biotechnol. 2008 Aug;26(8):867-75
references.pmid: 18688236
references.citation: Palliat Med. 2013 Apr;27(4):314-9
references.pmid: 23175511
references.citation: Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Dec;30(12):2318-27
references.pmid: 22147859
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;9:CD011230
references.pmid: 25220133
references.citation: BMJ. 2001 Mar 17;322(7287):654-7
references.pmid: 11250852
references.citation: Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003 Nov;56(5):569-75
references.pmid: 14651732
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2011 Apr 19;154(8):529-40
references.pmid: 21502651
references.citation: BMJ. 2001 Sep 1;323(7311):484-5
references.pmid: 11532839
references.citation: Lancet Oncol. 2011 Sep;12(9):825
references.pmid: 21875558
references.citation: P T. 2009 Aug;34(8):428-40
references.pmid: 20140107
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2009 Jan 8;360(2):103-6
references.pmid: 19129523
references.citation: BMJ. 2011;343:d6459
references.pmid: 21990283
references.citation: BMJ. 2013;346:f755
references.pmid: 23390241
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1997 Aug 28;337(9):581-8
references.pmid: 9271479
references.citation: PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e62609
references.pmid: 23650519
references.citation: Sociol Health Illn. 2013 Jun;35(5):761-77
references.pmid: 23094890
references.citation: BMJ. 1990 Feb 3;300(6720):307-11
references.pmid: 2106963
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 9;360(15):1557-66
references.pmid: 19357413
references.citation: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009 Nov;18(11):1094-100
references.pmid: 19697444
references.citation: Pharmacopsychiatry. 2007 May;40(3):116-20
references.pmid: 17541887
references.citation: BMJ. 2012;345:e8462
references.pmid: 23241451
references.citation: PLoS Med. 2008 Oct 28;5(10):e210
references.pmid: 18959472
references.citation: Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2014 Jul 12;10:537-46
references.pmid: 25050064
references.citation: BMJ. 2000 Jan 8;320(7227):79-82
references.pmid: 10625257
references.citation: PLoS Med. 2015 Feb;12(2):e1001785
references.pmid: 25689460
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2006 Aug 15;145(4):284-93
references.pmid: 16908919
references.citation: JAMA. 2008 Apr 16;299(15):1800-12
references.pmid: 18413874
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 8;166(9):1021-6
references.pmid: 16682577
references.citation: Ann Oncol. 2007 Dec;18(12):1923-5
references.pmid: 18083693