AUTH/2317/5/10: General Practitioner v AstraZeneca — conduct of representative (no breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2317/5/10
Parties	General Practitioner v AstraZeneca
Issue	Conduct of representative; alleged unsolicited visit; alleged disparaging/patronising comments; alleged promotion without due comparison/justification; handling of concerns/apology process
Product referenced	Symbicort SMART (Symbicort Maintenance And Reliever Therapy)
Applicable Code year	2008
Complaint received	16 May 2010
Case completed	06 August 2010
Appeal	No appeal
Clauses considered	2, 7.2, 8.2, 15.2
Decision	No breach of Clauses 2, 7.2, 8.2 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 GP complained about the conduct of an AstraZeneca representative; the complaint was copied to the PMCPA.
The GP said a meeting was arranged without his prior knowledge/consent shortly before a busy surgery (described as an unsolicited visit).
The GP alleged the representative opened by saying practice nurses had told her the GP “did not seem to know a lot about Symbicort Smart” and had been prescribing salbutamol, and asked if she could “have a word” with him.
The GP said the representative repeated this claim multiple times, described a nurse but refused to name her; the GP later interviewed nurses who denied making such remarks or having concerns about SMART prescribing.
The GP alleged the representative was patronising/condescending, did not set SMART dosing in the context of asthma management, and appeared to be “selling a product” without due comparison/justification.
AstraZeneca denied the allegations, stating a practice nurse gestured the representative and line manager into her office and suggested they see the GP to discuss Symbicort SMART’s licensed use in asthma (including concomitant blue inhaler use). AstraZeneca relied on contemporaneous call notes and stated the representative was on long-term absence during later stages.
The Authority asked AstraZeneca to respond in relation to Clauses 2, 7.2, 8.2 and 15.2 of the Code.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code.
The Panel ruled no breach of Clauses 2, 7.2, 8.2 and 15.2 because it was not possible to determine on the balance of probabilities precisely what occurred given markedly differing accounts.

🔒

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