AUTH/2445/10/11: GP v Boehringer Ingelheim — Sponsored linagliptin (Trajenta) article and “anticipated” price (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2445/10/11
Complainant	General practitioner
Company	Boehringer Ingelheim
Material	Sponsored article on linagliptin in Future Prescriber (July/August 2011, Volume 12, Issue 2, 2011)
Product	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
Issue framed by Authority	Advance notification under Clause 3.1
Clause(s) considered	Clause 3.1
Decision	No breach (on the narrow grounds of the complaint)
Complaint received	14 October 2011
Case completed	18 November 2011
Applicable Code year	2011
Appeal	No appeal
Related case referenced	AUTH/2424/8/11 (Panel had already ruled a breach of Clause 3.1 in a wider sense)

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 general practitioner complained about a company-linked (sponsored) article on linagliptin (later marketed as Trajenta) published in Future Prescriber (July/August 2011), before marketing authorisation (granted 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 pre-licence (as found in a related case), providing an unconfirmed price to all health professionals (including those without budget responsibility) was inconsistent with the Code’s rules on 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 invite cost comparisons.
Boehringer Ingelheim denied using the article for advance notification (or any purpose), and said it did not commission/authorise/approve the content; it also said it limited distribution once a complaint was received.
The Panel noted that, per the earlier case (AUTH/2424/8/11), Boehringer Ingelheim was inextricably linked to the article’s production and therefore responsible for its content under the Code (including via an agreement to purchase 2,000 reprints).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled on the narrow grounds of this complaint.
No breach of Clause 3.1 (Advance Notification of New Products or Product Changes).
The Panel noted it had already ruled a breach of Clause 3.1 in the related case AUTH/2424/8/11 in a wider sense (promotion prior to marketing authorisation).

🔒

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