Flynn Pharma: competitor disparagement in rep training and discussion about Abstral during Actiq promotion (AUTH/2316/5/10)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2316/5/10
Complainant	Consultant in palliative medicine
Company	Flynn Pharma Ltd
Product	Actiq (oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate)
Competitor product referenced	Abstral (sublingual fentanyl citrate), marketed by ProStrakan
Main issue	Disparaging/misleading competitor messaging in training materials and likely in-field discussion
Complaint received	07 May 2010
Case completed	01 July 2010
Applicable Code year	2008
Breach clauses	7.2, 8.1, 15.2, 15.9
No breach findings	No breach of Clauses 7.2 and 7.4 in relation to the allegation that Abstral was “usually swallowed by patients”
Sanctions	Undertaking received
Appeal	No appeal

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 consultant in palliative medicine complained about a Flynn Pharma representative promoting Actiq (oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate) during a February meeting.
The complainant alleged the representative made false/inaccurate statements about competitor product Abstral (sublingual fentanyl citrate, marketed by ProStrakan), including claims about bioavailability and efficacy.
The complainant also reported a claim that with Actiq patients could “turn their pain control on and off” by removing the lozenge; the PMCPA noted this claim had already been ruled in breach in a separate case (AUTH/2303/3/10) and did not take it up here.
Flynn provided interview notes and a contemporaneous CRM record; it also provided competitor briefing/training materials used to brief representatives about Abstral.
The Panel focused on how Abstral was portrayed in Flynn’s training slide deck/briefing and what was likely said in the meeting, given those materials.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found: Clause 8.1 (training slide wording and framing disparaged Abstral).
Breach found: Clause 15.9 (briefing material advocated a course of action likely to lead to a breach of the Code).
Breach found: Clause 7.2 (on the balance of probabilities, the representative misled the complainant about the competitor product).
Breach found: Clause 15.2 (representative conduct fell short of high standards, linked to misleading competitor discussion).
No breach found: Clauses 7.2 and 7.4 in relation to the specific allegation that the representative stated Abstral was “usually swallowed by patients” (insufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities).
Panel also recorded concerns about other parts of the competitor briefing/training that implied difficulty of use/protocol violations without supporting data, and that included conjecture about reasons for withdrawals/protocol violations in a study.

🔒

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