Sanofi-Aventis held responsible for athlete’s positive Lantus comments to the public at a hospital fun day (AUTH/1957/2/07)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1957/2/07
Complainant	Anonymous member of the public (mother of a child with type 1 diabetes)
Company	Sanofi-Aventis
Medicine	Lantus (insulin glargine)
Setting	Local hospital fun day; presentation to parents/public on sports and insulin
Main issue	Sponsored athlete’s positive statements about Lantus to the public, encouraging requests for prescribing
Applicable Code year	2006
Complaint received	7/8 February 2007 (reported as 07 Feb 2007 on case page; 8 Feb 2007 in report)
Case completed	10/11 April 2007 (reported as 10 Apr 2007 on case page; 11 Apr 2007 in report)
Breach clauses	Clause 9.1; Clause 20.2
No breach clauses	Clause 20.1; Clause 2
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous mother of a child with type 1 diabetes attended a local hospital fun day.
Parents were invited to a presentation on “sports and insulin”.
An athlete speaker (a known Lantus user) repeatedly referred to Lantus (insulin glargine) and how good it was; the complainant also viewed his website, which included positive statements about Lantus (eg, “Lantus allows me more flexibility so I race better, eat better and in general feel better…”).
The complainant felt encouraged to ask clinicians about switching her son to Lantus; she later learned the speaker was sponsored by a pharmaceutical company and complained.
Sanofi-Aventis said it had sponsored the athlete (including a £1,000 contribution in 2005), paid for speaking time/travel, and had facilitated some patient group appearances but claimed it did not control content and had briefed him not to promote insulins to the public.
The Panel considered that, given the arrangements, Sanofi-Aventis was responsible under the Code for the speaker’s statements at the meeting.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 20.2 (statements by the speaker were likely to have encouraged members of the public to ask their doctor to prescribe Lantus).
Breach of Clause 9.1 (overall arrangements did not uphold high standards).
No breach of Clause 20.1 (insufficient detail to conclude the presentation was, in effect, an advertisement to the general public).
No breach of Clause 2 (Panel did not consider the circumstances justified particular censure).
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