AUTH/1880/8/06: Consultant Physician v Merck Sharp & Dohme (Market research survey) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1880/8/06
Complainant	Consultant physician
Company	Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited
Issue	Market research survey/letter asking HCPs to nominate other specialists; concern about unsolicited contact and potential disguised promotion/database building
Therapy areas	Asthma; allergic rhinitis
Incentive	£25 online gift vouchers (honorarium)
Clause(s) considered	Clause 10.2
Decision	No breach
Complaint received	8 August 2006
Case completed	21 September 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

📋

⌄

A consultant physician complained about an unsolicited market research survey and covering letter sent by an agency on behalf of Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD).
The questionnaire asked recipients to nominate physicians they sought guidance from in asthma and allergic rhinitis (eg, leading UK asthma specialists; local/regional asthma and allergic rhinitis specialists; respected doctors).
The covering letter said the information would be used to help structure future medical education programmes and to invite the addressee and nominated colleagues to speak/participate in meetings, partnerships and research initiatives, and to “deliver tailored information”.
The complainant felt unsolicited mail was inappropriate and was concerned MSD was paying him to provide details of other doctors who could then be contacted in a similar unsolicited way.
The Authority asked MSD to respond in relation to Clause 10.2 (market research must not be disguised promotion).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code.
The Panel accepted commissioning market research to validate understanding of secondary care networks in asthma and allergic rhinitis was not unacceptable.
Although the Panel had concerns (see below), it did not consider the material amounted to disguised promotion.

🔒

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