In 2014, a major pharmaceutical company faced a €105 million fine after regulatory authorities discovered promotional materials that overstated efficacy claims and minimized safety concerns for one of their flagship products. This case represents just one of many instances where non-compliance with regulatory standards has led to severe financial and reputational damage in the pharmaceutical industry.
For pharmaceutical companies operating in Europe, understanding the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and its role in promotional compliance isn't just good practice—it's essential for business survival. While marketing teams focus on creating compelling messages, regulatory affairs professionals must ensure these messages align with strict standards that protect public health.
This article aims to clarify the EMA's role in pharmaceutical marketing and explain why its guidance is crucial for anyone involved in creating, reviewing, or approving promotional materials in this highly regulated industry.
What is the EMA?
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is a decentralized agency of the European Union, established in 1995 and headquartered in Amsterdam. Its primary mission is to foster scientific excellence in the evaluation and supervision of medicines for the benefit of public and animal health in the EU.
Unlike its American counterpart, the FDA, the EMA doesn't directly approve every medicine marketed in Europe. Instead, it coordinates the European Union's scientific resources to evaluate and supervise medicinal products, working through a network that includes thousands of experts from across Europe.
Key functions of the EMA related to promotional compliance include:
- Scientific evaluation and approval of product information: The EMA reviews and approves the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and Patient Information Leaflet (PIL), which become the foundation for all promotional claims.
- Pharmacovigilance monitoring: The agency continuously monitors the safety of medicines and can require updates to product information that must subsequently be reflected in promotional materials.
- Development of scientific guidelines: These guidelines inform how pharmaceutical products should be developed, tested, and ultimately presented to healthcare professionals and patients.
Key EMA requirements for promotional material review
| Requirement | Description |
|---|---|
| Consistency with SmPC | All promotional materials must align with the approved Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) to avoid misleading claims. |
| Fair balance | Promotional materials must present both the benefits and risks of a product in a balanced manner. |
| Scientific accuracy | Claims must be supported by scientific evidence and should accurately reflect clinical trial data. |
| Substantiation of claims | Comparative and superiority claims require robust evidence from clinical trials or meta-analyses. |
| Prohibition of off-label promotion | Marketing materials cannot promote uses that are not approved in the product's SmPC. |
| Cross-border consistency | Promotional materials must be consistent across all EU member states where the product is marketed. |
| Inclusion of safety information | Mandatory safety warnings and risk information must be prominently displayed. |
The EMA's role in promotional material oversight
It's important to understand that the EMA does not directly review or approve promotional materials—this responsibility falls to National Competent Authorities (NCAs) in each EU member state, such as the MHRA in the UK or ANSM in France. However, the EMA establishes the regulatory framework through which promotional materials are evaluated.
The legal basis for pharmaceutical promotion in the EU is primarily defined by Directive 2001/83/EC (specifically Articles 86-100), which sets out requirements for pharmaceutical advertising across all member states. This directive stipulates that all promotion must be consistent with the approved product information, must not be misleading, and must present a balanced view of the product's benefits and risks.
Why EMA guidance matters in promotional review
SmPC as the foundation for all claims
The EMA-approved Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) serves as the definitive guide for what can and cannot be claimed about a medicinal product. All promotional materials must:
- Remain within the approved indications
- Not contradict safety information
- Adhere to approved dosage recommendations
- Present efficacy claims that are consistent with clinical data reflected in the SmPC
Cross-border consistency requirements
For pharmaceutical companies running pan-European campaigns, adhering to EMA guidance ensures consistency across markets. While local interpretations and additional requirements may vary, the foundation established by the EMA-approved product information provides a baseline that cannot be compromised in any jurisdiction.
Scientific accuracy and balance
The EMA's rigorous scientific evaluation process sets high standards for evidence-based medicine. This translates into promotional requirements that demand:
- Factually accurate presentations of clinical data
- Appropriate context for efficacy claims
- Fair balance between benefits and risks
- Clear presentation of limitations and uncertainties
Substantiation of claims
When it comes to comparative claims or statements of superiority, the EMA guidance (reflected in national regulations) requires robust substantiation. This typically means direct comparative clinical trials or, in some cases, well-designed meta-analyses. Vague superlatives or unsubstantiated claims of "best" or "most effective" treatment options are generally prohibited.
How ApprovalFlow helps with EMA-compliant reviews
ApprovalFlow's specialized promotional review system helps pharmaceutical companies navigate the complex landscape of EMA compliance with features specifically designed for the life sciences industry:
- SmPC Integration: The system can link directly to approved product information, allowing reviewers to verify claims against the official source material in real-time.
- Automated Workflows: Configure approval pathways that ensure materials are reviewed by all relevant stakeholders, including medical, regulatory, and legal experts.
- Reference Management: Maintain a validated library of approved claims and their supporting references, making it easier to ensure all promotional statements are properly substantiated.
- Comprehensive Audit Trails: Document every stage of the review process, creating defensible evidence of due diligence that can be presented during regulatory inspections.
| Regulatory Area | EMA Guidelines | ABPI Code of Practice | Similarity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consistency with Product Information (SmPC) | Promotional materials must align with the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) to avoid misleading claims. | Promotional content must reflect the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and be consistent with the marketing authorization. | Both require strict alignment with approved product information. |
| Fair Balance of Benefits and Risks | Promotional claims must represent both efficacy and safety in a balanced way. | All claims must present benefits and risks in a fair and balanced manner, avoiding exaggeration. | Both emphasize balanced communication of benefits and risks. |
| Prohibition of Off-Label Promotion | Promotional materials cannot promote indications not approved in the SmPC. | Off-label promotion of products is strictly prohibited under any circumstances. | Both strictly forbid marketing claims outside approved indications. |
| Substantiation of Claims | Claims must be scientifically accurate and supported by clinical evidence. | All promotional claims must be evidence-based and supported by robust clinical data. | Both require claims to be scientifically substantiated with clinical evidence. |
| Pharmacovigilance and Safety Updates | Any safety updates or new risks identified must be reflected in promotional materials. | Safety information, including side effects and risks, must be up-to-date and prominently displayed. | Both require prompt updates to reflect safety changes in promotional content. |
| Scientific Accuracy and Clarity | Claims must be clear, accurate, and not misleading. | All promotional material must be clear, legible, and balanced, avoiding ambiguity. | Both prioritize clarity and scientific accuracy to avoid misleading information. |
| Cross-Border Consistency | Promotional materials must be consistent across all EU member states. | Materials should be consistent in all markets where the product is promoted, with local adaptations as required. | Both stress consistency in messaging across multiple jurisdictions. |
| Transparency and Ethical Promotion | Promotional practices must adhere to ethical standards and avoid misleading healthcare professionals or patients. | The ABPI enforces strict ethical standards, focusing on transparency and avoiding misleading promotions. | Both emphasize ethical marketing practices and transparency. |
| Audit and Documentation | Requires traceable documentation of compliance with promotional guidelines. | ABPI mandates audit trails and compliance documentation for regulatory inspections. | Both demand thorough documentation to support regulatory inspections. |
| Item | Check |
|---|---|
| Pre-review preparation | |
| Unique identifier assigned to material | |
| Version number and date clearly indicated | |
| Previous versions archived for reference | |
| Draft clearly marked as "Draft - Not for Distribution" | |
| Reference documentation ready | |
| Current approved SmPC (Summary of Product Characteristics) | |
| Current PIL (Patient Information Leaflet) | |
| Relevant clinical study reports or publications | |
| Previous regulatory correspondence related to promotional claims | |
| Local country requirements documentation | |
| EFPIA Code of Practice or relevant industry code | |
| General compliance requirements | |
| Material classification | |
| Material properly classified (promotional vs. non-promotional) | |
| If promotional, target audience clearly defined (HCP vs. patient/public) | |
| If claiming non-promotional status, verify no promotional elements included | |
| Mandatory information | |
| Full generic name appears at least once in the main body of the text | |
| Brand name does not appear more prominently than generic name | |
| Marketing authorization holder clearly identified | |
| Date of preparation or last revision included | |
| Material reference code included | |
| Local legal entity responsible for the material identified | |
| Prescribing information | |
| Complete prescribing information included as required by local regulations | |
| Positioned appropriately (e.g., adjacent to main promotional content) | |
| Font size legible (minimum size requirements met) | |
| Black-box or special warnings prominently displayed as required | |
| No separation of benefits from relevant risk information | |
| Content compliance | |
| Alignment with SmPC | |
| All claims fully consistent with approved SmPC | |
| No promotion outside approved indications | |
| No suggestion of unapproved dosing regimens | |
| No promotion for unapproved patient populations | |
| All safety information consistent with current SmPC | |
| No contradictions to contraindications in SmPC | |
| Special warnings and precautions appropriately reflected | |
| Scientific accuracy | |
| All claims can be substantiated by robust scientific evidence | |
| Data presented accurately reflects source material | |
| Statistical significance clearly indicated where relevant | |
| P-values included where appropriate | |
| Confidence intervals included where appropriate | |
| Study limitations acknowledged where relevant | |
| No exaggeration of efficacy claims | |
| No minimization of safety concerns | |
| Data presentation | |
| Graphs and charts include full axes and scales | |
| No misleading visual representations of data | |
| Appropriate time scales used in data visualization | |
| No cherry-picking of favorable data points | |
| Comparable time points used when presenting comparative data | |
| Patient numbers clearly indicated in study results | |
| Drop-out rates included where relevant to interpretation | |
| References | |
| All claims supported by appropriate references | |
| References cited are accessible to the audience | |
| No selective citation of favorable studies only | |
| References are from peer-reviewed publications where possible | |
| Data on file clearly marked and available upon request | |
| Abstracts and posters clearly identified as such | |
| Complete citation information provided (authors, title, journal, date, etc.) | |
| Balance | |
| Fair balance between efficacy and safety information | |
| Benefits not overstated | |
| Risks not understated | |
| Equal prominence given to benefits and risks | |
| Overall impression is balanced and not misleading | |
| Specific claims review | |
| Comparative claims | |
| Direct comparative data available from head-to-head studies | |
| If indirect comparisons used, methodological limitations acknowledged | |
| Comparison groups and study designs appropriate and clearly stated | |
| No unsubstantiated claims of superiority | |
| Comparative claims limited to aspects where genuine therapeutic advantage exists | |
| Comparator products not disparaged | |
| Superiority and superlative claims | |
| Avoid unqualified superlatives ("best," "most effective," etc.) | |
| Any superiority claims substantiated by robust evidence | |
| Class-leading claims supported by data covering all relevant competitors | |
| Any unique selling points verified as genuinely unique | |
| Economic claims | |
| Cost-effectiveness claims based on robust pharmacoeconomic data | |
| Price comparisons include all relevant costs (not just acquisition cost) | |
| Economic models and assumptions clearly stated | |
| Country-specific economic data used for local markets | |
| Source of pricing information clearly stated and current | |
| Quality of life claims | |
| Based on validated QoL instruments | |
| Clinical significance of QoL differences explained | |
| Patient populations in QoL studies clearly defined | |
| QoL claims tied to specific aspects measured, not generalized | |
| Digital/multimedia specific requirements | |
| Websites and digital materials | |
| Access controls in place for HCP-only content | |
| Prescribing information accessible within one click | |
| All pages include date of last update | |
| Site map or search function available for comprehensive websites | |
| Functionality tested across major browsers and devices | |
| Social media content | |
| Complies with character/space limitations while maintaining balance | |
| Risk information not separated from benefit information | |
| Mechanisms to report adverse events clearly indicated | |
| Comment moderation policy established and followed | |
| Audio/visual materials | |
| Safety information presented with same emphasis as efficacy | |
| Duration allows for adequate comprehension of risk information | |
| Prescribing information visible for adequate duration | |
| No distracting elements during presentation of important safety information | |
| Transcript available for audio content | |
| Special situations | |
| Adverse event information | |
| Process in place for collecting and reporting adverse events mentioned in response to materials | |
| Contact information for reporting adverse events included | |
| No claims suggesting absence of adverse events or drug interactions | |
| Pre-approval and pipeline communications | |
| No promotion of unapproved products or indications | |
| Pipeline information limited to factual statements | |
| Investigational status clearly indicated | |
| No claims of efficacy or safety for unapproved products/indications | |
| Educational content separated from any promotional intent | |
| Press releases | |
| Content is factual and balanced | |
| No promotional claims in releases for general public | |
| Clear distinction between approved and investigational uses | |
| Financial/business information separated from clinical claims | |
| Final review checks | |
| Overall impression | |
| Material creates an accurate and balanced impression of the product | |
| Key messages are clear and not misleading | |
| No implied claims that cannot be substantiated | |
| Tone is professional and appropriate for target audience | |
| Overall presentation complies with the spirit of regulations, not just technical requirements | |
| Review documentation | |
| All reviewer comments documented and addressed | |
| Resolution of any disagreements documented | |
| Final approval from all required functions obtained | |
| Medical/scientific review completed and documented | |
| Legal review completed and documented | |
| Regulatory review completed and documented | |
| Local country review completed if applicable | |
| Post-approval process | |
| Expiration/review date set for material | |
| Distribution channels documented | |
| Process in place for withdrawal if required | |
| Process in place for updates if SmPC changes | |
| Archiving system established for approved materials | |
| Country-specific requirements | |
| Local adaptations | |
| Local language requirements met | |
| Country-specific mandatory statements included | |
| Local price and reimbursement information accurate | |
| Local codes of practice requirements addressed | |
| Material adapted to local medical practice context | |
| Pre-approval countries | |
| Materials submitted to authorities as required | |
| Approval/notification numbers included as required | |
| Waiting periods observed before distribution | |
| Required modifications from authorities implemented | |
Download the ABPI checklist to learn more about the code
Download the PDF now.