AUTH/2266/9/09: General Practitioner v Chiesi (Fostair) — No breach (conduct of representative)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2266/9/09
Parties	General Practitioner v Chiesi
Issue	Conduct of representative; alleged undue sales pressure and misleading statements about other practices and PCT pharmacy support
Product	Fostair (beclometasone plus formoterol)
Complaint received	16 September 2009
Case completed	30 April 2010
Applicable Code year	2008
Clauses considered	2, 7.2, 9.1 and 15.2
Decision	No breach
Appeal	No appeal
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 general practitioner complained that a Chiesi representative exerted sales pressure over most of 2009 to get the practice to switch asthma patients to Fostair (beclometasone plus formoterol).
At a September 2009 meeting (attended by another doctor, two practice nurses and the complainant), the GP alleged the representative said two other local practices were already switching and that local PCT pharmacy representatives were keen for switches—claims the GP said were untrue.
Chiesi said discussions related to disease reviews and formulary processes (practice-based commissioning/area prescribing committee), and that the representative could not have asserted that switches were happening because she did not know outcomes of any reviews.
Further submissions introduced an August 2009 interaction with a practice support pharmacist; the pharmacist stated she was told certain practices would be switching to Fostair and later found that was not true.
The Panel noted conflicting accounts and delays in obtaining information, making it difficult to establish exactly what was said.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel stated representatives must be very clear when discussing other health professionals’ use of a product to avoid misleading by implication, but concluded the complainant had not proved the complaint on the balance of probabilities.
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