AUTH/1962/2/07: PCT adviser v AstraZeneca – Symbicort budget impact model presented to practice managers (no breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1962/2/07
Complainant	Primary care trust pharmaceutical adviser
Company	AstraZeneca UK Limited
Medicine	Symbicort (budesonide/formoterol)
Material	Report/presentation: “Budget Impact Model for Asthma & COPD” (ref SYMB 06 P10639)
Setting	Meeting of local general practice managers (12 attendees), organised by local primary care managers team; held at a hospice
Hospitality/cost	£100 total; £8.33 per head; buffet lunch, tea and coffee
Key allegation	Inappropriate content/audience (practice managers) and meeting sponsorship concerns
Panel decision	No breach of Clause 12.1; No breach of Clause 19.1
Notable Panel comment	Sponsorship disclosure should have been on invitation and agenda (Clause 19.3 expectation); minutes-only disclosure “wholly inadequate” (no allegation/no ruling)
Complaint received	19 February 2007
Case completed	3 May 2007
Applicable Code year	2006
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 primary care trust (PCT) pharmaceutical adviser complained about a report/presentation titled “Budget Impact Model for Asthma & COPD” (ref SYMB 06 P10639) relating to Symbicort (budesonide/formoterol), presented by an AstraZeneca representative to 12 local general practice managers.
The complainant alleged the information was inappropriate for practice managers (said to have no responsibility for prescribing budgets) and was contrary to local prescribing guidelines (the latter point was deemed not a Code matter).
The meeting was organised by the local primary care managers team; AstraZeneca sponsored lunch/refreshments (£100 total; £8.33 per head) at a hospice venue.
The presentation used local prescribing data to show the prescribing split between Symbicort and Seretide and modelled the budget impact of changing treatment strategies for asthma/COPD; it did not discuss clinical data.
Sponsorship was stated on the minutes (front page) rather than on the invitation/agenda; the presentation itself was handled under “matters arising” rather than being explicitly listed on the agenda (not complained about).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 12.1 (distribution/tailoring of promotional material to appropriate audience).
No breach of Clause 19.1 (meetings and hospitality for appropriate administrative staff; meeting appropriateness and cost).
Panel expressed concern (not ruled as a breach because it was not alleged) that sponsorship disclosure did not meet Clause 19.3 expectations: disclosure should have been on the invitation and agenda, not only retrospectively in minutes.

🔒

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