AUTH/1852/6/06: General Practitioner v Pfizer — BMJ ‘Rapid Response’ on Lipitor ruled not promotional (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1852/6/06
Complainant	General Practitioner
Company	Pfizer
Medicine / subject	Lipitor (atorvastatin); BMJ editorial ‘Switching statins’ and Pfizer ‘Rapid Response’
Allegation	Disguised promotion; should have included prescribing information and adverse event reporting advice; not a genuine medical information response
Clauses considered	4.1, 4.10, 10.1
Decision	No breach
Complaint received	26 June 2006
Case completed	21 August 2006
Appeal	No appeal
Applicable Code year	2006

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 general practitioner complained that Pfizer’s electronic response in the BMJ’s ‘Rapid Responses’ to an editorial (‘Switching statins’) was disguised promotion of Lipitor (atorvastatin).
The complainant argued Rapid Responses were not peer reviewed, were publicly accessible, and that the post made supportive claims about atorvastatin—therefore it should have included prescribing information and adverse event reporting advice.
The complainant also argued it was not a genuine medical information letter responding to a specific enquiry.
Pfizer said the response was a fully referenced, scientifically balanced correction of alleged errors in the editorial, and that the Code’s definition of promotion (Clause 1.2) excludes certain replies to professional communications when accurate, non-misleading and non-promotional.
Pfizer discussed the open-access point with the BMJ; the BMJ regarded Rapid Responses as part of the journal and welcomed the scientific debate, not viewing the response as promotional.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code.
The Panel found Pfizer’s response was not promotional in nature; it was scientific and factual, stayed within the topic of switching statins, and was signed by the medical director (and would be read in that context).
The Panel concluded the response was not disguised promotion and did not require prescribing information or adverse event reporting statements.

🔒

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