Pfizer letter requesting addition of Ecalta and Celsentri to hospital e-prescribing system ruled promotional without prescribing information

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2078/1/08
Case reference	Hospital Pharmacist v Pfizer (Promotion of Ecalta and Celsentri)
Complainant	Hospital pharmacist
Respondent/company	Pfizer Limited
Product(s)	Ecalta; Celsentri
Material/channel	Letter sent on behalf of Pfizer to hospital recipients regarding electronic prescribing and dispensing system listing
Key issue	Whether the letter was promotional and therefore required prescribing information; Panel ruled it promoted the products and lacked required prescribing information
Dates (received/completed if stated)	Complaint received 15 January 2008; Case completed 14 February 2008
Appeal	Not stated
Code year	Not stated
Breaches/clauses	Clause 4.1 (breach). Clause 1.2 considered (exemption not accepted).
Sanctions	No explicit additional sanctions stated beyond the required undertaking/corrective actions described in the report

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

📋

⌄

A hospital pharmacist complained about a letter sent on behalf of Pfizer Limited.
The letter asked the recipient to add Ecalta and Celsentri to the list of available medicines on the local electronic prescribing and dispensing system.
The letter stated the products’ names and their pharmaceutical form.
The letter advised that further information, including full monographs and summaries of product characteristics, was available from Pfizer.
The complainant regarded the letter as an advertisement and queried whether it should have included prescribing information.
Pfizer argued the letter was not promotional and was intended to ensure hospital databases were updated when new medicines became available, noting secondary care tracking was conducted using computer-based systems and that a specialist agency was used to contact relevant pharmacists.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled the letter did not meet the exemption for “factual, accurate, informative announcements and reference material” under Clause 1.2.
The Panel considered the letter was a request to facilitate addition of the products to an electronic prescribing/dispensing system and that soliciting such action would promote the prescription, supply, sale or administration of the products.
The Panel ruled the letter was promotional and therefore should have included prescribing information for each product.
Because no prescribing information was included, the Panel ruled a breach of Clause 4.1.

🔒

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