AUTH/2144/7/08 Nurse v Syner-Med: question at a meeting (no breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2144/7/08
Case reference	Question at a meeting
Complainant	A nurse
Respondent/company	Syner-Med (Pharmaceutical Products) Limited
Product(s)	Venofer (injectable iron preparation; iron sucrose)
Material/channel	Sponsored lunchtime educational symposium at the British Renal Society conference; open Q&A discussion
Key issue	Alleged impression that an EpiPen could replace cardio-pulmonary resuscitation procedures when discussing safety of iv iron in the community
Dates (received/completed if stated)	Complaint received 17 July 2008; Case completed 16 September 2008
Appeal	Not stated
Code year	2006 Code (Clauses 7.2, 7.9, 7.10); considered under 2008 Constitution and Procedure
Breaches/clauses	No breach of Clauses 7.2, 7.9 and 7.10
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 nurse complained about a lunchtime educational meeting/symposium organised by Syner-Med at the British Renal Society (BRS) conference.
The meeting was titled “Anaemia in chronic kidney disease: The future of iv iron treatment”, lasted 60 minutes, and included three presentations followed by questions.
The complainant alleged a speaker talked about giving Syner-Med’s product Venofer (iron sucrose) in the community.
In the open Q&A, a delegate asked about safety issues of giving intravenous (iv) iron in the community.
Another delegate from the audience said they had “got around this” by sending people away with an EpiPen (adrenaline injection).
The complainant alleged the speaker and several Syner-Med representatives made no comment, giving the impression that cardio-pulmonary resuscitation procedures could be replaced with an EpiPen.
Syner-Med stated the meeting was educational and not product-specific; no brand names were used in the slides, and the company did not contribute to slide content (it supplied only background templates to two speakers).
Syner-Med said the question was general, not directed to its part-time consultant speaker, and it was not appropriate for the company to comment on other medicines or clinical practice.
The Panel noted Syner-Med sponsored the meeting; one speaker acted as a part-time consultant to Syner-Med; ten Syner-Med staff attended; and one slide referred to iv iron sucrose.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel noted the Venofer SPC warned that parenteral iron can cause potentially fatal allergic/anaphylactoid reactions and that treatment for serious allergic reactions and facilities with established cardio-pulmonary resuscitation procedures should be available.
The Panel considered it might have been helpful if someone had reminded the audience about cardio-pulmonary resuscitation during the EpiPen discussion.
However, because it was impossible to know the exact question/answer and context, and on the balance of probabilities, the Panel was satisfied the audience was not left with the impression that an EpiPen could replace cardio-pulmonary resuscitation as alleged.
No breach of the Code was ruled.

🔒

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