Vifor Pharma: third-party email about Ferinject found misleading (AUTH/2399/4/11)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2399/4/11
Product	Ferinject (iron solution for injection/infusion)
Company	Vifor Pharma UK Limited
Complainant	Renal anaemia nurse practitioner
Material	Third-party email linking to a video about redesigning IV iron services/QIPP
Main issue	Misleading implication that Ferinject was the only IV iron deliverable as a single total dose infusion and that others required multiple visits
Panel finding	Breach of Clause 7.2 (misleading claim)
Applicable Code year	2008
Complaint received	13 April 2011
Case completed	27 June 2011
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	Undertaking received

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 renal anaemia nurse practitioner complained about an email relating to Ferinject (iron solution for injection/infusion) which they considered biased and implying savings.
The email (sent by a third-party media company) stated that iron deficiency treatment involves multiple hospital visits, but “a drug called Ferinject… administers all the iron a patient needs in one 30 minute visit”, and linked to a video about redesigning IV iron services and QIPP.
Vifor had paid the media company a nominal fee to host the NHS Alliance video on its website; the media company then emailed registered users about the video.
Vifor said it did not proactively disseminate the video/article and removed the video once it realised the media company was not affiliated with NHS Alliance.
The Panel treated the media company’s distribution as done with Vifor’s authority, making Vifor responsible under the Code.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found: the email claim was ruled misleading because it implied Ferinject was the only IV iron that could be given as a single total dose infusion and that all other products required multiple visits.
The Panel noted at least one other medicine (Cosmofer) could be administered as a total dose infusion (albeit over 4–6 hours).
The Panel expressed “extreme concerns” that Vifor considered the video non-promotional; in the Panel’s view it clearly promoted Ferinject and should, at minimum, have included prescribing information.
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