The story of one complaint
(Aust Prescr 2003;26:67)
Shortly after a review of tegaserod1 wasprepared for Australian Prescriber, oneof the editorial staff noticed an advertisement for the drug in a medical newspaper.The advertisement appeared to show a young man and a young woman complainingabout their symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. Unfortunately, the youngman would not be able to get relief from tegaserod as it was only approvedfor women. Without studying the product information, health professionals maynot have been aware of this restriction from the advertisement.
I wrote to the Code of Conduct Committee to say the advertisement could bemisinterpreted. I did not specify which section of the Code might have beenbreached, but the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (APMA,now Medicines Australia) identified three possible breaches.
On the day the APMA informed me the complaint would be considered, I was surprisedto receive a telephone call from the manufacturer of tegaserod. Obviously theAPMA had promptly informed the company of the source of the complaint.
The head of marketing politely discussed the issues I had identified. I wasreassured that there had been no intention to misinform health professionals.The manager suggested that as any breach of the Code of Conduct would be aminor technicality it may be appropriate to withdraw my complaint. He alsopointed out that the Code of Conduct Committee has a big workload and it wouldbe helpful if the Committee did not have to consider inadvertent breaches.
The manager followed up his telephone call with a civil electronic mail messageasking me to consider withdrawing the complaint. If other companies take thisvery persuasive approach it may help to explain why relatively few complaintsfrom health professionals reach the Code of Conduct Committee.
I was on the verge of withdrawing the complaint when tegaserod started appearingin the general media. The stories hailed tegaserod as a breakthrough treatmentand featured Kirstie Marshall (Olympic skier, now turned Victorian MP) as thecelebrity sufferer. Unfortunately, the message that tegaserod was only approvedfor women with a less common form of irritable bowel syndrome was not clear.Perhaps the marketing materials did need clarification? I decided not to withdrawthe complaint.
The Code of Conduct Committee found the advertisement had breached all threesections of the Code. In keeping with APMA policy2,I was asked to keep the verdict confidential in case the company appealed thedecision. I heard nothing more about the complaint until it was published inthe annual report of the Code of Conduct Committee.3
References
1. Tegaserod.Aust Prescr 2002;25:74-5.
2. MarleyJ. Complaints: a personal view. Aust Prescr 1999;22:80.
3. Medicines Australia. Code of Conduct Annual Report2002. Canberra: Medicines Australia; 2002.
