AUTH/2347/8/10: Anonymous v Bristol-Myers Squibb (Onglyza) – alleged pressure to secure prescriptions via “tracker” forms and GP texts (No breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2347/8/10
Parties	Anonymous complainant v Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Limited
Product	Onglyza (saxagliptin)
Issue	Alleged pressure on GPs to prescribe for pre-determined patient numbers; alleged use of forms and expectation of GP texts confirming prescriptions
Applicable Code year	2008
Clauses considered	9.1, 9.2 and 15.2
Panel decision	No breach of the Code
Complaint received	13 August 2010
Case completed	20 September 2010
Appeal	No appeal
Notes	Panel highlighted that any material used with health professionals must be certified in accordance with Clause 14 and otherwise comply with the Code (mentioned in the ruling, though Clause 14 was not part of the complaint clauses).

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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable GP alleged Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) asked its field force to get GPs to prescribe saxagliptin (Onglyza) for a pre-determined number of patients within set time periods.
The allegation included that reps had to complete a form naming the GP and the number of patients, and that GPs were expected to text the representative when the agreed number of prescriptions had been completed.
BMS said it tracked regional prescription targets using territory/practice-level IMS data and had not briefed reps to request patient numbers per GP.
BMS explained some reps might create their own internal “tracker” based on prescriber feedback to estimate progress, and cited an example where a GP texted a rep unsolicited after a positive call.
The complainant provided no identifying details (no name, region, or rep identity), limiting BMS’s ability to investigate.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was found.
No breach of Clause 15.2 (representatives’ conduct) because, even if a certified form and texting were involved, that would not automatically be a breach; the nature of the request and the form would be crucial—and no details were provided.
No breach of Clauses 9.1 and 9.2 (high standards and special nature of medicines) on the material before the Panel.

🔒

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