AUTH/2252/7/09: Professor v CV Therapeutics Europe (Ranexa) – memory stick seen as inducement to secure an interview

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2252/7/09
Parties	Professor v CV Therapeutics Europe (recently acquired by Gilead Sciences Europe)
Product	Ranexa (ranolazine)
Issue	Alleged use of a USB memory stick as an inducement to gain an interview; conduct of representative
Complaint received	20 July 2009
Case completed	15 October 2009
Applicable Code year	2008
Breach clauses	Clause 15.3
No breach clauses	Clause 15.2 (no breach; appeal unsuccessful)
Appeal	Yes – by complainant (re Clause 15.2); not successful
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated

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 professor completed a reply-paid card requesting information about Ranexa (ranolazine) and a USB memory stick.
On 17 July 2009, a sales representative (with a colleague/line manager) arrived at the hospital centre without an appointment and asked to see the professor.
The professor’s secretary/PA said he was busy and asked that Ranexa information and the memory stick be left.
The representative left product information but did not leave the memory stick at that time (accounts differed as to whether she refused to leave it without seeing the professor, or whether she simply did not have it with her and failed to explain clearly).
Later actions were disputed: the representative said she returned and left a memory stick at reception with a note; the professor said this was impossible and no stick was received that way.
Both parties agreed that a memory stick was subsequently sent by post and received by the professor.
The complainant appealed the Panel’s finding of no breach of Clause 15.2 (high ethical standards), alleging dishonesty; the appeal was unsuccessful.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 15.3 was ruled (impression that the memory stick was being used as an inducement to gain an interview).
No breach of Clause 15.2 was ruled by the Panel and upheld by the Appeal Board.
Appeal by the complainant was not successful.

🔒

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