Servier: email linked heart rate monitors to Procoralan promotion (AUTH/2094/1/08)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2094/1/08
Complainant	Prescribing adviser (Channel Islands)
Company	Servier Laboratories Ltd
Product(s)	Procoralan (ivabradine); Coversyl (mentioned in email)
Issue	Proposed provision of Procoralan samples; provision of heart rate monitors and whether linked to promotion/inducement
Applicable Code year	2006
Complaint received	31 January 2008
Case completed	5 March 2008
Appeal	No appeal
Breach clause(s)	Clause 15.2
No breach clauses	Clauses 2, 9.1, 17.8, 18.1, 18.4
Sanctions	Undertaking received

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 prescribing adviser on one of the Channel Islands complained about Servier’s conduct relating to Procoralan (ivabradine) samples and heart rate monitors.
Procoralan had been turned down for inclusion on the island’s prescribing list (so it could not be prescribed at public expense), but could be prescribed for private patients.
In November 2007, Servier representatives met a consultant cardiologist and offered Procoralan samples to trial; the complainant said this did not comply with the hospital policy that samples must be received via pharmacy and only formulary medicines accepted.
The complainant also alleged heart rate monitors were offered as an inducement to start patients on Procoralan.
Servier said the samples had not been provided; correspondence was via the doctor’s private email and the delivery address was the doctor’s private clinic.
Briefing material for representatives stated heart rate monitors were “not a promotional aid” and must be delivered in a separate, non-promotional call with no promotional discussion; however, the briefing notes were signed by “The Procoralan Team”.
An email from the representative referenced Procoralan samples and also said the doctor would receive heart rate monitors, and asked for another doctor’s name to keep him updated about “Procoralan and Coversyl”.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found: Clause 15.2 (high standards) due to the email failing to separate provision of heart rate monitors from promotion of Procoralan.
No breach: Clause 17.8 (samples) because the samples had not been provided.
No breach: Clauses 18.1 and 18.4 (medical/educational goods and services / inducement) — monitors could enhance patient care and there was no evidence they were used as an inducement to prescribe.
No breach: Clauses 9.1 and 2.
No appeal.

🔒

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