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	Nurse
Respondent/company	Syner-Med (Pharmaceutical Products) Limited
Product(s)	Venofer (injectable iron preparation; iron sucrose)
Material/channel	Sponsored lunchtime educational meeting/symposium at British Renal Society conference; open Q&A session
Key issue	Alleged impression that an EpiPen could replace cardio-pulmonary resuscitation procedures when administering 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 (considered under 2008 Constitution and Procedure)
Breaches/clauses	No breach of Clauses 7.2, 7.9, 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

🎬 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 nurse complained about a lunchtime educational meeting/symposium organised/sponsored by Syner-Med at the British Renal Society (BRS) meeting.
The complaint related to a Q&A discussion about safety issues of giving intravenous (iv) iron in the community.
According to the complaint, a delegate said they had addressed this by sending people away with an EpiPen (adrenaline injection), and the speaker and Syner-Med representatives did not comment, allegedly giving the impression that cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) procedures could be replaced with an EpiPen.
Syner-Med stated the symposium (100+ delegates) was titled “Anaemia in chronic kidney disease: The future of iv iron treatment”, lasted 60 minutes, and included three presentations followed by questions.
Syner-Med said the question was general, not product-specific and not directed at its part-time consultant speaker; a nurse delegate answered based on local experience with EpiPens in home haemodialysis.
The Panel noted Syner-Med sponsored the meeting; one speaker acted as a part-time consultant to Syner-Med; Syner-Med supplied slide templates to two speakers; and ten Syner-Med staff attended.
The Panel noted one slide referred to iv iron sucrose, but the presentation appeared to be about anaemia management rather than Venofer specifically.

⚖️

⌄

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 CPR procedures should be available.
The Panel considered it might have been helpful if someone had reminded the audience about CPR during the EpiPen discussion.
However, because it was impossible to know the exact question/answer and context, the Panel concluded that on the balance of probabilities the audience was not left with the impression that an EpiPen could replace CPR 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