AUTH/2014/6/07: Consultant in Public Health v Pfizer – Promotion of Champix (varenicline) (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2014/6/07
Complainant	Lead consultant in public health at a primary care trust (PCT)
Company	Pfizer Limited
Product	Champix (varenicline)
Main issue	Alleged premature/unethical promotion pre-definitive NICE guidance; alleged undermining of local guidelines/NRT; alleged lack of courtesy in informing local PCT/stop smoking service
Activity	June 2007 meeting for health professionals involved in smoking cessation; provision of “GP referral aid”/pad of letters aimed at prescribers
Audience	GPs, pharmacists, practice managers, stop smoking advisors, nurses (18 delegates at the meeting in question)
Authority focus clauses	Clauses 2 and 9.1
Applicable Code year	2006
Complaint received	28 June 2007
Case completed	15 August 2007
Outcome	No breach (Clauses 9.1 and 2)
Appeal	No appeal
Published	November 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 lead consultant in public health at a PCT complained about Pfizer’s promotion of Champix (varenicline).
The complaint focused on a June 2007 meeting for GPs, practice managers and stop smoking advisors (including those in community pharmacies) and the provision of a pad of letters/“GP referral aid” aimed at prescribers.
Allegations included that promotion was premature because definitive NICE guidance had not yet been published; that Pfizer sought to obstruct locally agreed prescribing guidelines and “ride roughshod” over nicotine replacement therapy (NRT); and that the meeting was organised without informing the local PCT/stop smoking service.
Pfizer stated Champix had UK marketing authorisation (26 September 2006) and it was entitled to promote; the meeting was requested by local health professionals; 18 delegates attended; the slide kit was internally approved and pre-vetted by the MHRA; and the “GP referral aid” supported referral and behavioural support via the stop smoking service.
Pfizer said local guidelines were not discussed at these meetings and no superiority over NRT was discussed; representatives discussed Champix as an option where smokers had failed on NRT and Zyban (bupropion).
Pfizer said it had kept in touch with the team leader of the local stop smoking service (who reported to the complainant) and had asked that the complainant be informed/invited.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 9.1 (including on the allegations of premature promotion, undermining local guidelines/NRT, and lack of courtesy/consultation).
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