AUTH/2158/8/08: Pharmacist v Sanofi-Aventis — Acomplia reply-paid card fulfilment (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2158/8/08
Parties	Pharmacist practitioner v Sanofi-Aventis
Medicine	Acomplia (rimonabant)
Issue	Alleged failure to respond/fulfil a reply-paid card request for clinical studies and promotional items
Materials/items requested	Copies of four rimonabant clinical studies; laptop case; USB stick; laser pointer
Complainant preference	Indicated he did not want to see a representative
Clause(s) assessed	Clause 9.1
Decision	No breach of Clause 9.1
Appeal	Yes — by the complainant; unsuccessful
Complaint received	06 August 2008
Case completed	13 November 2008
Applicable Code year	2008

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 pharmacist practitioner complained that Sanofi-Aventis did not respond after he returned a reply-paid card for Acomplia (rimonabant).
The card stated NICE had recommended Acomplia for obesity and offered copies of four rimonabant clinical studies plus items the practice “would have found useful” (a laptop case, a USB stick and a laser pointer).
The complainant indicated he did not want to see a representative.
After around four weeks, the requested items had not been delivered and the complainant said no representative had called.
Sanofi-Aventis said it had no record of receiving the complainant’s card and assumed it was lost in the post; it described an agency/representative/warehouse process that typically took 8–12 weeks from card return to receipt of items.
The Authority asked Sanofi-Aventis to respond in relation to Clause 9.1.
The complainant appealed, disputing the “lost in post” explanation and arguing the company could have rectified the situation by delivering or posting the papers.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled by the Panel.
No breach of Clause 9.1 was upheld by the Appeal Board (appeal unsuccessful).

🔒

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