Social media and pharma, a necessary presence riddled with risks

Pharmaceutical compliance leaders discuss how to appropriately manage communications on social media platforms.

Because pharma needs to meet audiences where they are, social media is a necessity to communicate medical and company information. However, it can also be an area rife with negative regulatory or financial outcomes.

The rise of online healthcare influencers, aka Digital Opinion Leaders (DOLs), has also introduced new complexities to these communications. Kaushal Rana, brand counsel at Takeda Pharmaceuticals, shared an experience from a colleague at another company during a Pharmaceutical Compliance Congress panel.

“They had an influencer who went through all the training and was perfectly fine posting on their social media platforms. However, when they started getting direct messages, they insisted on engaging with followers against protocol, claiming it was part of their brand.”

The training the DOL undertook included avoiding engaging with followers on product-related matters, refraining from providing medical advice, forwarding inquiries to the agency, and using pre-approved responses. Their decision to deviate from protocol was rooted in the belief that direct engagement was central to their personal brand, and they felt that using canned responses or avoiding engagement altogether would damage their authenticity and harm their relationships with followers.

Rana said, “This is kind of the risk we’ve talked about. You could do everything right, but it’s still a lack of control if you’re a company. We just don’t have full and end control.”

Levels of content, review, and management

Outside of the DOL challenge, another issue facing pharmaceutical companies is social media content management, especially regarding product information. Panelist Sharon Delshad, director, legal affairs, corporate and compliance counsel at Travere Therapeutics spoke about the stringent restrictions: “We have the rule that you’re actually not allowed to talk about efficacy on our medical social media page. We can post about poster [presentations] and publications, but other than that, we don’t allow efficacy discussions. Mechanism of action and disease state information are acceptable, but anything beyond that is just too risky.”

This focus on disease state information and careful handling of mechanism of action discussions, with strict limitations on efficacy-related content, allows companies to maintain an active social media presence while ensuring regulatory compliance.

The panelists had different takes on how they manage and control social media risks around their communications, but requirements seem to fall into four distinct channels for different purposes. For example, corporate communications and its social media accounts focus on company news, disease awareness, and financial updates, while commercial channels handle product-specific content, including social media and advertising. Medical communications maintain a separate stream for scientific exchange, conferences, publication announcements, and disease state information. Dedicated medical affairs channels serve as platforms for scientific exchange, ensuring appropriate separation of different types of content.

Outside of using clear channel identifications, companies are implementing or have implemented comprehensive content review processes as a risk management strategy. This requires regular meetings between corporate communications and medical teams to ensure consistent messaging while adhering to regulatory requirements.

As the digital landscape continues to evolve, pharmaceutical companies face ongoing challenges in maintaining compliance while engaging effectively with their audiences. “Every day is a new day,” said Delshad. “With approved products and potential new indications, we face heightened risks and need specific rules for each disease state.”

Learn more about pharmaceutical compliance at our upcoming conference.