AUTH/2306/3/10: Pharmacist v Pfizer — discussion of generic losartan price before marketing authorisation (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2306/3/10
Parties	Pharmacist v Pfizer
Issue	Alleged promotion / discussion of price of generic losartan before marketing authorisation
Applicable Code year	2008
Complaint received	29 March 2010
Case completed	2 July 2010
Appeal	No appeal
Medicine(s)	Losartan (generic); Cozaar referenced as branded losartan (not from Pfizer)
Key evidence discussed	Pfizer price list emailed to buyers on 2 February; verbal discussion with a buyer on 4 February; complainant alleged face-to-face discussion but did not mention email/price list
Panel finding	No breach of Clauses 3.1, 9.1 and 15.2
Sanctions	None 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

🎬 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 complained that a Pfizer commercial account manager discussed the price of losartan in early February 2010 when it was not yet available in generic format.
The complainant said they asked whether Pfizer had a licence and were told it was still in the application process.
Pfizer said the only discussion about losartan marketing authorisation was with a named buyer (not the complainant) and that a price list was emailed to some buyers on 2 February.
Pfizer received the marketing authorisation for losartan on 8 February 2010 (four days after the buyer call described by Pfizer).
The Panel considered that a price list can fall outside “promotion” only if it concerns licensed medicines and includes no product claims; here, the price list included unlicensed losartan.
However, the Panel had to decide the complaint on the evidence about the alleged face-to-face interaction with the complainant, and the complainant did not refer to an email/price list.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled on the basis of the complaint and evidence available.
The Panel stated that discussion of forthcoming medicines could be subject to the Code, and that the price list (because it included unlicensed losartan) could not rely on the “price list” exemption if sent to health professionals/appropriate administrative staff.
Despite those observations, the Panel found no evidence the price list had been provided to the complainant and therefore ruled no breach in this case.

🔒

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