AUTH/1860/7/06: Anonymous GP v Profile Pharma (Promixin) – I-neb nebuliser package deal and dose equivalence claims (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/1860/7/06
Parties	Anonymous general practitioner v Profile Pharma Ltd
Product	Promixin (colistimethate sodium)
Issue	Alleged inducement via I-neb nebuliser provision; alleged unproven/misleading dose equivalence claims
Device/arrangement	I-neb nebuliser system operated by a microchip disc supplied in packs of Promixin vials; Panel viewed it as a package deal with Promixin
Clauses considered	7.2, 7.3, 15.2 and 18.1
Decision	No breach of the Code
Complaint received	3 July 2006
Case completed	8 August 2006
Applicable Code year	2006
Appeal	No appeal

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

📋

⌄

An anonymous general practitioner complained about the promotion of Promixin (colistimethate sodium) by Profile Pharma Ltd.
The complaint focused on provision of an I-neb nebuliser system to cystic fibrosis patients, operated via a microchip disc supplied in boxes of Promixin vials.
The complainant queried whether the I-neb arrangement (described as a “free loan”) and the need for a Promixin disc implied an inducement to prescribe, especially given Promixin’s higher price versus other colistimethate sodium products.
The complainant alleged representatives claimed that 1 MIU of Promixin via I-neb was as effective as 2 MIU of colistimethate sodium via other nebulisers, and that this could not be proven.
Profile stated it did not promote to GPs; explained Promixin could be used with any conventional nebuliser; and that the I-neb could be obtained either via the Promixin package arrangement or purchased separately with appropriate discs.
Profile provided data and explanations about nebuliser efficiency (lower residual volume, delivery during inhalation) to support the dose comparison.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel found the I-neb was supplied as part of a package deal with Promixin and considered it fair, reasonable and relevant to the medicine.
The Panel found no evidence (on the material available) that representatives made misleading claims about dose equivalence/lung dose.

🔒

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