GP v Pfizer: ‘Remember Arthrotec’ reply-paid card ruled promotional and missing non-proprietary name (AUTH/2077/1/08)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2077/1/08
Parties	General Practitioner v Pfizer
Product	Arthrotec (diclofenac/misoprostol)
Material	Reply-paid card (ref ART-035-07) offering a memory stick; separate from a promotional leaflet
Main issue	Reply-paid card headed “Remember Arthrotec” omitted the non-proprietary name
Applicable Code year	2006
Complaint received	07 January 2008
Case completed	31 January 2008
Breach clauses	Clause 4.1
Sanction	Undertaking received
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 general practitioner complained about a Pfizer GP mailing that included a promotional leaflet and a wholly separate reply-paid card offering an Arthrotec memory stick.
The reply-paid card was headed “Remember Arthrotec” and included Pfizer’s address, but did not include the approved/non-proprietary name (diclofenac/misoprostol).
Pfizer argued the card was not promotional (no claims) and relied on reply-paid card guidance (Clause 9.8) that such cards should not bear both the medicine name and usage information.
The Panel considered the reply-paid card a promotional item in its own right because it was separate (not a tear-off physically part of the leaflet) and therefore had to “stand alone” for Code requirements.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found: the reply-paid card was promotional material and required prescribing information; it omitted the non-proprietary name.
The Panel stated compliance with reply-paid card guidance (Clause 9.8) was not incompatible with complying with Clause 4.1.
The Panel noted that if the card had been physically part of the leaflet, it could have relied on the leaflet’s prescribing information.
The Panel also noted prescribing information could have been included on the card without breaching Clause 9.8 because when posted it was folded and sealed so only the address was visible externally.

🔒

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