Editorial Comment
A new edition of the Code of Conduct was implemented in 2003. Although there has not been a dramatic increase in complaints the Code of Conduct Committee has imposed more fines. Although these fines would be substantial for an individual they are relatively small in comparison to the companies' advertising budgets.
Readers of Australian Prescriber have expressed an interest in knowing more about the background of the complaints. More detail can be found in the report of the Code of Conduct Committee, but a common theme this year was the promotion of prescription medicines to the public.
Direct-to-consumer advertising is not allowed in Australia, so drug companies have to be careful that their information campaigns, such as disease-awareness activities, do not advertise their products.4Three of the breaches involve companies which provided information on web sites.
Novo Nordisk, which produces Vagifem (oestradiol) pessaries, promoted a web site about atrophic vaginitis, through hairdressers. While the hairdressers' capes, which displayed the web site address, were not considered to be educational material, the Code of Conduct Committee concluded that the information on the web site was sufficient to allow a woman to seek a prescription for a specific product.
Roche was found to have breached the code as it was not clear that it was the sponsor of the web site of the Healthy Weight Taskforce. It was also considered that Roche should take more responsibility for the activities of the Healthy Weight Taskforce, to ensure prescription medicines were not promoted to the public.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration complained about the CSL web site. This was found to contain information which could promote particular products to the public.
Other breaches of the code involved written material for consumers. A pharmacy poster about Pfizer's sildenafil was a serious breach, as was an in-flight magazine advertorial by Sanofi-Synthelabo. A pamphlet produced by Aventis Pasteur for patients to receive after influenza immunisation was considered to be promoting a particular product.
Two of the unsuccessful complaints involved competitions. The two companies involved had offered hand-held computers as prizes. As the Committee considered that the perceived value of the prizes was close to the limit of what might withstand public and professional scrutiny, no breaches were found.
