Meda: uninvited ‘Patient Safety’ email about EpiPen ruled disguised promotion (AUTH/2488/3/12)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2488/3/12
Complainant	Lead pharmacist
Company	Meda Pharmaceuticals Limited
Product	EpiPen
Material	Uninvited email titled “Re. Adrenaline Autoinjectors & Patient Safety”
Main issues	Disguised promotion; promotional email without prior permission; alleged misleading/unsubstantiated statements about local GP confusion
Applicable Code year	2011
Complaint received	09 March 2012
Case completed	28 June 2012
Final clause findings	No breach: 7.2, 7.4 (on appeal). Breach: 9.9, 12.1.
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 lead pharmacist complained about an uninvited email from Meda titled “Re. Adrenaline Autoinjectors & Patient Safety”.
The email discussed confusion between administration techniques for adrenaline auto-injectors and referred to EpiPen (marketed by Meda) and the “swing & jab” method.
It stated there was no data on outcomes if a “place and push” device (Jext) was administered like an EpiPen, and warned confusion could put lives at risk.
The email said “Local GPs have suggested” Meda contact the complainant; the complainant said their PCT had received no such concerns and alleged disguised promotion.
The Panel considered the email promotional (it referenced EpiPen, anaphylaxis, and familiarity with EpiPen due to 15 years’ use).
The Panel initially ruled the “Local GPs…” statement misleading/unsubstantiated (Clauses 7.2 and 7.4), but Meda appealed and provided further particulars (including that over 40 GPs/pharmacists had expressed concern and 12–15 had asked Meda to write to PCTs).

⚖️

⌄

Breach upheld: Clause 12.1 (disguised promotion via the email title implying safety information).
Breach upheld: Clause 9.9 (promotional email sent without prior permission of the recipient).
No breach on appeal: Clauses 7.2 and 7.4 (Appeal Board accepted the claim about GP confusion was substantiated and not misleading).
The appeal by Meda was successful on Clauses 7.2 and 7.4 only.

🔒

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