AUTH/1894/10/06: Novartis v AstraZeneca – Arimidex mailing and misleading cost comparison | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1894/10/06
Parties	Novartis v AstraZeneca
Product/material	Arimidex (anastrozole) cost comparison mailing (ref ARIM 06 18944)
Audience	Hospital pharmacists and network pharmacists
Main issue	Misleading cost comparison that did not make clear differing licensed indications
Costs shown (28 days)	Arimidex 1mg (£65.56/£68.56 as reported); letrozole 2.5mg (£83.16); exemestane 25mg (£82.88)
Applicable Code year	2006
Clause(s) breached	Clause 7.2
Complaint received	5/6 October 2006 (reported as 05 and 06 October 2006)
Case completed	28/29 November 2006 (reported as 28 and 29 November 2006)
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated

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

📋

⌄

Novartis complained about an AstraZeneca mailing for Arimidex (anastrozole) (ref ARIM 06 18944) sent to hospital and network pharmacists.
The mailer included a table headed “Comparing the cost of Aromatase Inhibitors in the treatment of breast cancer” showing 28‑day costs: Arimidex 1mg (£65.56/£68.56 as reported), letrozole 2.5mg (Femara) (£83.16) and exemestane 25mg (Aromasin) (£82.88).
Novartis alleged the cost comparison was oversimplified and misleading because the products’ licensed indications were not the same and the mailer did not specify which indications the comparison related to.
AstraZeneca argued the purpose was to compare acquisition costs per 28 days; dosing was one tablet daily across indications; and there were shared indications (adjuvant and advanced breast cancer) making the comparison valid.

⚖️

⌄

Breach ruled: the Panel found the cost comparison misleading because it sat under a general “treatment of breast cancer” heading without stating that indications differed.
The Panel noted letrozole had two licensed indications (pre-surgery/neoadjuvant and extended adjuvant after five years of tamoxifen) for which Arimidex was not licensed, meaning Arimidex was not necessarily the least expensive option for all “types of breast cancer”.
No appeal.

🔒

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