Meda Pharmaceuticals: EpiPen booklet claims ruled misleading and unprofessional (AUTH/2492/3/12)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2492/3/12
Parties	Prescribing Advisor v Meda Pharmaceuticals Limited
Material	Booklet: ‘The Case for EpiPen (Adrenaline) Auto-Injector’ (15-page A4; ref UK/EPI/11/0053d)
Audience / distribution	Primary Care Trusts (PCTs)
Main issues	Misleading terminology (“regional”); unsubstantiated patient dissatisfaction claim; unsubstantiated/exaggerated “massive task”; implication that switching wastes NHS resources / lack of respect for audience
Applicable Code year	2011
Complaint received	22 March 2012
Case completed	30 May 2012
Appeal	No appeal
Breach clauses	Clause 7.2 (x4), Clause 7.4 (x2), Clause 9.2
Sanction	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

📋

⌄

A prescribing advisor complained about a 15-page A4 booklet from Meda Pharmaceuticals Ltd: ‘The Case for EpiPen (Adrenaline) Auto-Injector’ (ref UK/EPI/11/0053d).
The complainant said the booklet’s tone/content was sensationalist, emotive and unsubstantiated, and that it sought to create alarm in response to a competitor product.
Specific claims challenged included: use of “regional” decision-making language; predictions about patient dissatisfaction if switched; describing switching as “a massive task”; and stating switching costs/time were a “questionable use of scarce health resources”.
The booklet was sent to Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) and discussed financial/resource implications of switching adrenaline auto-injector brands (including Jext).

⚖️

⌄

Breach found for misleading use of “regional” (audience likely to interpret as larger than a PCT area): Clause 7.2.
Breach found for unsubstantiated claim that “many patients are likely to be unhappy” about switching: Clauses 7.4 and 7.2.
Breach found for “This is a massive task” (no data to quantify time/scale) and related “regional decision” wording: Clauses 7.2 and 7.4 (and 7.2 for the “regional” aspect).
Breach found for implying decision-makers who switch would waste NHS resources, failing to recognise the professional standing of the audience: Clause 9.2.
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