AUTH/2034/8/07: MHRA v Recordati — Tradorec XL leavepiece and prohibited ‘MHRA advice’ reference

📅 2007 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

Case numberAUTH/2034/8/07
ComplainantMedicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
CompanyRecordati Pharmaceuticals Ltd
ProductTradorec XL (tramadol)
MaterialLeavepiece (ref TRA06-0020)
Main issuePromotional reference to “MHRA advice” on prescribing prolonged release preparations by brand/no generic substitution
Applicable Code year2006
Breach clausesClause 9.5
Complaint received10 August 2007
Case completed6 September 2007
AppealNo appeal
SanctionsUndertaking received; additional sanctions not stated

Download the full case report (PDF)


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
📋

What happened

  • The MHRA complained about a Tradorec XL (tramadol) leavepiece (ref TRA06-0020) issued by Recordati.
  • Page three included a boxed heading “MHRA advice:” stating: “Prolonged Release preparations should be prescribed by brand, with no generic substitution”.
  • The statement was referenced to “Personal Communication. Recordati Pharmaceuticals Ltd”.
  • Recordati said it had emailed the MHRA Information Centre (via a consultant) for advice on prescribing once-daily tramadol formulations and received replies indicating modified/prolonged release preparations should be prescribed by brand/invented name.
  • The consultant then asked if the MHRA reply could be shown to NHS workers; the MHRA replied that it could.
  • The Panel noted the emails to MHRA were sent by a consultant describing himself as an independent pharmaceutical consultant, without stating he was writing on behalf of Recordati, and without mentioning the intention to use the information in promotional material.
⚖️

Outcome

  • Breach ruled: Clause 9.5.
  • No appeal.
  • Undertaking received.
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value
£249/year
Annual — save £99
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access

⭐ Business Intelligence Access

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export.

Request Access →
⭐ Flagship Programme

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

12 modules. 12 weeks. Final Signatory readiness. The industry standard for ABPI Code signatories — £995 + VAT.

Enrol — AQP Path Learn more

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free
🎓 AQP Training