← Back to Cases
PMCPA Case

Pharmacist v Pfizer: Times statins article and ‘bad medicine’ quote (AUTH/1858/6/06) – No breach

📅 2006 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

⌄
Case numberAUTH/1858/6/06
ComplainantPharmacist
CompanyPfizer
IssuePress article quoting Pfizer about statin prescribing targets, switching to generics, and statements including “bad medicine” and “only 33%… Lipitor is more potent”.
MediaThe Times article “Savings on heart drugs attacked as ‘bad medicine’” (22 June)
Complaint received26 June 2006
Case completed14 September 2006
Applicable Code year2006
Clauses considered (per case page)7.2 and 7.3
DecisionNo breach
AppealNo appeal
NotesPfizer stated it identified internally that material sent to the journalist was not appropriately reviewed and certified (Clause 14.3), and it re-emphasised its approval process; the Panel ruling in this case was no breach of Clauses 7.2 and 7.3.

Download the full case report (PDF)

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
📋

What happened

⌄
  • A pharmacist complained about a The Times article (“Savings on heart drugs attacked as ‘bad medicine’”, 22 June) which included quotations attributed to Pfizer.
  • The article discussed guidance urging prescribers to write at least 60% of statin prescriptions for simvastatin or pravastatin (excluding combination products), framed as a cost-saving measure.
  • The complainant argued the article implied prescribing simvastatin 40mg was “bad medicine”, citing the Heart Protection Study 2002 and questioning whether atorvastatin had an evidence base of similar quality.
  • The complainant also challenged a reported Pfizer statement: “On 40mg of simvastatin, a normal dose, only 33 per cent of people would reach this target (4mmol/litre). Lipitor (atorvastatin) is more potent”, referencing CURVES study comparisons.
  • Pfizer responded that its comments criticised cost-driven switching/targets rather than simvastatin or pravastatin per se, and that the information provided to the journalist was accurate and not misleading.
  • Pfizer stated the journalist used “potency” as synonymous with efficacy, which was not how Pfizer had briefed the journalist.
  • Pfizer noted internally it had identified that material sent to the journalist was not appropriately reviewed and certified (Clause 14.3), and said it re-emphasised/clarified its media approval process.
  • The Panel assessed complaints about press articles by focusing on what the company supplied to the journalist, not the article content itself.
⚖️

Outcome

⌄
  • No breach of the Code was ruled.
  • No breach of Clause 7.2 was ruled.
  • No breach of Clauses 7.2 and 7.3 was ruled.
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

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

Best value
£249/year
Annual — save £99
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access
← All Cases Book a Free Compliance Call

⭐ Business Intelligence Access

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export.

Request Access →
⭐ Flagship Programme

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

12 modules. 12 weeks. Final Signatory readiness. The industry standard for ABPI Code signatories — £995 + VAT.

Enrol — AQP Path Learn more

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free
🎓 AQP Training