AUTH/1835/5/06: GP v Recordati — Rep-created appointment letter ruled promotional and uncertified | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1835/5/06
Complainant	General practitioner
Company	Recordati Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Product	Zanidip (lercandipine)
Issue	Rep letter seeking appointment contained efficacy/price/positioning claims; not on headed paper; included draft NICE/BHS guideline material; lacked prescribing information; not certified
Applicable Code year	2006
Clauses considered	4.1, 10.1, 15.2
Breaches	4.1, 15.2
No breach	10.1
Sanction	Undertaking received
Complaint received	5 May 2006
Case completed	12 June 2006
Appeal	No appeal
Source	https://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/completed-cases/auth1835506-gp-v-recordati

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

A GP received a letter from a Recordati medical representative that was not on company headed paper.
The letter requested a brief appointment and stated the rep was selling a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker described as an inexpensive, long-acting hypertension treatment.
It referenced draft NICE/BHS guidelines and suggested changes were prompted (at least in part) by ASCOT, which showed benefits for a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist.
The rep said she would not sell the drug as a “miracle cure” but asked the GP to consider it second line after first-line failure, and said she was hopeful the GP would be surprised how inexpensive and effective it was.
Draft guidelines, a proforma to request a visit, and a stamped addressed envelope were enclosed.
Recordati marketed Zanidip (lercandipine), a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 4.1.
Breach of Clause 15.2.
No breach of Clause 10.1 (not disguised promotion).
Panel view: the rep had effectively created her own promotional material which was not certified and the letter did not include prescribing information.

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access