![]()
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Researched Medicines Industry (RMI) Code of Practice
complaints 2004
The Researched Medicines Industry (RMI) received two
complaints, and one appeal was lodged under the Code of Practice during 2004 as
follows:
AstraZeneca Limited versus
Roche regarding an advertisement for Dilatrend in the New Ethicals
catalogue
The complaint from AstraZeneca related to the advertisement
“Dilatrend is estimated to extend life by 1.4 years compared to
metoprolol” which appeared in the New Ethicals Catalogue alleging breaches
of Principle 4 of the Code relating to comparisons. The Code of Practice
Standing Committee (COPSC) upheld the complaint.
The COPSC imposed the following penalties:
Merck Sharp & Dohme
(New Zealand) Limited versus AstraZeneca Limited regarding a journal
advertisement for Atacand
The complaint from Merck Sharp &
Dohme (MSD) related to an advertisement
by AstraZeneca regarding the comparative advertising with respect to losartan
(Cozaar) and candesartan (Atacand). It is alleged that the advertisement was in
breach of Principle 4 sections 4.3.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.2 and 4.6.1 of the Code. The
COPSC upheld the complaint in regard to Principle 4: 4.3.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.2.
However, the allegation of a breach under 4.6.1 was not upheld.
The COPSC imposed the following penalties:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Current
issue | Search journal |
Archived issues | Classifieds
| Hotline (free ads) Subscribe | Contribute | Advertise | Contact Us | Copyright | Other Journals |