Servier voluntary admission: rep sent unsolicited promotional email and created promotional letters (AUTH/1889/9/06)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/1889/9/06
Company	Servier Laboratories Ltd
Type	Voluntary admission treated as a complaint
Issue	Unsolicited promotional email; rep-created promotional letters without certification/prescribing information; inadequate instructions/training evidence
Product	Protelos (strontium ranelate)
Applicable Code year	2006
Complaint received / proceedings commenced	13 September 2006
Completed	02 November 2006
Appeal	No appeal
Breach clauses	9.1, 9.9, 15.2 and 15.9
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
Related follow-on	Panel raised training-material concerns as separate complaint: AUTH/1906/10/06

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

📋

⌄

In responding to a separate case (AUTH/1884/8/06), Servier disclosed additional issues: a representative’s inappropriate use of email and creation/use of letters.
The PMCPA Director treated this voluntary admission as a complaint because it involved potentially serious issues (promotional email without prior permission; rep-created promotional material).
A representative emailed a hospital doctor inviting her to speak at a meeting and suggested a lunchtime meeting to discuss Protelos (strontium ranelate) and data on non-vertebral fractures in the over 80s.
The representative also sent a letter to the same doctor to rebook a cancelled appointment to discuss “new evidence behind Protelos…”, ending with an emboldened question: “Would you recommend for patients unable to take the Bisphosphonates, that Protelos is the next option in line with the formulary?”
Servier stated these actions were contrary to company instructions; the representative was disciplined.
The Panel reviewed training/instructions and noted the company had not established the representative had received relevant training when the initial email was sent; training materials were undated and did not clearly address unsolicited promotional email or rep-created promotional letters.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled the email and letter were promotional.
Breach found for sending a promotional email without prior permission from the recipient.
Breach found for failure to maintain high standards and for inadequate company instructions/training controls around email use and creation of promotional material.
No breach of Clause 2 was ruled (Panel said Clause 2 is reserved for particular censure and the circumstances did not warrant it).
The Panel was extremely concerned about training materials and decided to raise this as a separate complaint (Case AUTH/1906/10/06).

🔒

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