AUTH/1931/12/06: Practice Manager v Teva (Qvar) — conduct of a representative (no breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1931/12/06
Complainant	Practice manager
Company	Teva UK Limited
Product	Qvar (CFC-free beclometasone dipropionate inhaler for asthma)
Issue	Alleged aggressive/demanding conduct; unannounced visit; alleged scaremongering/pressure to change prescribing
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 15.2
Decision	No breach
Complaint received	11 December 2006
Case completed	2 March 2007
Applicable Code year	2006
Appeal	No appeal
Published	May 2007 Code of Practice Review

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 practice manager complained about a Teva representative’s conduct during an unannounced visit to a GP surgery.
The complainant alleged the representative was “extremely aggressive and demanding”, insisted it was “extremely important” to be seen that day, and pushed for an immediate private meeting with a doctor or nurse.
The representative allegedly launched into a clinical discussion and urged the practice to change prescribing regarding beclometasone (Teva marketed Qvar, a CFC-free beclometasone dipropionate inhaler for asthma).
The complainant said the practice followed prescribing advice from the PCT and alleged the representative would not accept this and was “scaremongering”, implying patients would suffer if the practice did not take her advice.
Teva said the representative was raising patient-care-related issues: MHRA guidance to prescribe CFC-free BDP by brand, and GSK’s planned discontinuation of Becotide/Becloforte in 2007.
Teva stated the representative had previously discussed Qvar with the senior GP, who (per the representative) expressed interest in Qvar.
Both parties described the other as curt; the interaction appeared to involve a clash of personalities and an unplanned meeting when the complainant was busy.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code.
The Panel found it was not possible to determine where the truth lay and there was insufficient evidence, on the balance of probabilities, that the representative failed to maintain a high standard of ethical conduct.
No breach of Clauses 15.2 and 9.1; therefore no breach of Clause 2.

🔒

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