AUTH/2412/6/11: Anonymous v Lilly — Byetta samples supplied to a hospital (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2412/6/11
Parties	Anonymous complainant v Eli Lilly and Company Limited
Product	Byetta (exenatide)
Issue	Alleged provision of a large number of hospital pharmacy samples to encourage prescribing; concern about downstream primary care cost
Complaint received	24 June 2011
Case completed	20 July 2011
Applicable Code year	2011
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 17.2, 17.3, 17.8, 17.12
Panel decision	No breach of the Code
Sampling details (as stated)	Ten samples each to four physicians (40 total); Byetta pre-filled pen 5mcg; dispatched 17–21 Feb 2011
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable hospital staff member complained that Eli Lilly placed a large number of Byetta (exenatide) samples in the hospital pharmacy to encourage doctors to prescribe.
The complainant alleged this would make initial hospital prescribing effectively “free”, but costs would later fall to primary care when patients transferred to their GP.
Lilly stated samples were requested by the lead pharmacist on behalf of the hospital pharmacy diabetes and metabolism departments (unclear if verbal or written).
Four physicians received samples (ten each; 40 total) and completed sample request documentation including signatures and GMC numbers.
The purchasing pharmacist signed the “Hospital Pharmacy Contact Details” section on 2 Feb 2011; clinicians signed later (8–11 Feb). Samples were dispatched 17–21 Feb 2011 via a third-party logistics provider.
The Panel reviewed whether sampling complied with Code Clause 17 requirements and whether there was any inducement to prescribe.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 17.2 (quantity limits and product on market <10 years).
No breach of Clause 17.3 (request forms signed and dated by applicants).
No breach of Clause 17.8 (no evidence supply failed to comply with hospital requirements, based on policy provided).
No breach of Clause 17.12 (no evidence samples were an inducement to prescribe/supply/etc.).
No breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards) and Clause 2 (disrepute), given the above.

🔒

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