Astellas told reps to see senior dermatologists “4 times by Dec 31”: overcalling and unclear briefing (AUTH/1913/11/06)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1913/11/06
Parties	Doctor v Astellas Pharma Ltd
Complaint received	05 November 2006
Case completed	23 January 2007
Published	May 2007 Code of Practice Review
Applicable Code year	2006
Product/context	Protopic (tacrolimus); dermatology focus following EMEA/FDA safety reviews
Main issue	Briefing objective to see senior grade dermatologists “4 times by December 31 2006” and alleged overcalling/harassment
Breach clauses	15.4 and 15.9
Clause 2	Not breached (Panel did not consider it warranted)
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions: Not stated
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 doctor complained that Astellas representatives were being asked to see dermatology consultants four times between mid-October and Christmas, describing it as close to harassment.
Astellas had issued a “Skinsense Briefing Document” to reps at an October 2006 sales conference, shifting focus to dermatology and discussions about Protopic (tacrolimus) following EMEA/FDA safety reviews.
The briefing stated: “Your objective is to see your Senior Grade Dermatologists 4 times by December 31 2006”.
Astellas argued this meant total contacts for the whole year (including different types of contacts), not four calls in Oct–Dec, but accepted the document could have been clearer.
The Panel noted Code supplementary information: proactive calls should normally not exceed three per year on average (with certain exclusions), and that briefing materials should distinguish between “call rates” and “contact rates”.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 15.9 ruled because the briefing document, without explanation, advocated a course of action likely to breach the Code.
Breach of Clause 15.4 ruled; the Panel treated the complaint as evidence that overcalling had actually occurred and noted the reference to harassment.
No breach of Clause 2; the Panel did not consider the matter warranted particular censure.

🔒

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