AUTH/2445/10/11: GP v Boehringer Ingelheim — Sponsored linagliptin article and “anticipated” price (no breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2445/10/11
Parties	General Practitioner v Boehringer Ingelheim
Material	Sponsored article on linagliptin in Future Prescriber (July/August 2011, Volume 12, Issue 2, 2011)
Medicine	Linagliptin (Trajenta)
Key statement at issue	Cost anticipated to be similar to other DPP-4 inhibitors (around £32 per month)
Actual cost noted by Panel	£33.26 for a 28-day supply
Complaint received	14 October 2011
Case completed	18 November 2011
Applicable Code year	2011
Clause(s) considered	Clause 3.1
Decision	No breach
Appeal	No appeal
Related case referenced	AUTH/2424/8/11 (Panel had ruled a breach of Clause 3.1 in the wider sense of pre-authorisation promotion)

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

📋

⌄

A general practitioner complained about a company-linked (“sponsored”) article on linagliptin (Trajenta) published in Future Prescriber (July/August 2011), before Trajenta received its marketing authorisation (August 2011).
The article compared linagliptin with other DPP-4 inhibitors and stated its cost was anticipated to be similar (around £32 per month).
The complainant argued that, because the article was deemed to promote linagliptin pre-licence (as established in a related case), giving an unconfirmed price to all health professionals (not just budget holders) was inconsistent with the Code’s requirements for advance notification.
The complainant alleged the journal was not an appropriate forum for advance notification and that the company was trying to circumvent the Code to enable cost comparisons.
Boehringer Ingelheim said it did not commission/authorise/approve the article, had not used it for any purpose (including advance notification), and had limited distribution once a complaint was received.
The Panel noted that, per the earlier case (AUTH/2424/8/11), the company was inextricably linked to the article’s production (including an agreement to purchase 2,000 reprints) and therefore responsible for its content under the Code.
The Panel compared the anticipated cost (“around £32 per month”) with the eventual actual cost (£33.26 for a 28-day supply) and considered them similar.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code on the narrow grounds of this complaint.
No breach of Clause 3.1 (the article was not considered to constitute advance notification of Trajenta).
The Panel reiterated that in the related case (AUTH/2424/8/11) it had already ruled a breach of Clause 3.1 in the wider sense of pre-authorisation promotion.

🔒

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