Sanofi breached ABPI Code after sales rep told clinician an IFR for Mozobil “will” be approved

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2499/4/12
Complainant	Pharmacist adviser for a specialised commissioning group
Company	Sanofi (Genzyme was a Sanofi company)
Medicine	Mozobil (plerixafor)
Issue	Email about local funding arrangements; rep stated PCT “will approve” an IFR
Applicable Code year	2011
Complaint received	18 April 2012
Case completed	22 June 2012
Breach clauses	Clause 7.2 and 15.2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
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

📋

⌄

A pharmacist adviser for a specialised commissioning group complained about an email from a Sanofi haematology sales representative to a hospital clinician about local funding for Mozobil (plerixafor) (a Genzyme medicine; Genzyme was a Sanofi company).
The email advised the clinician to submit an individual funding request (IFR) to the relevant primary care trust (PCT) and stated that the PCT “will approve it”.
The representative suggested using this approach “at the minute” until the specialised commissioning group provided clarity on which funding “pot” would pay.
The complainant alleged the intervention was inappropriate, unhelpful and inaccurate, and that the representative should have referred the clinician to an appropriate NHS contact given the limits of her knowledge.
Sanofi said the regional policy document did not make financial arrangements clear and there was ongoing confusion; the representative acted in good faith based on her understanding.
The Panel reviewed the email and supporting correspondence indicating uncertainty about whether IFRs would succeed.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 7.2 ruled (misleading statement that the PCT “will approve” the IFR).
Breach of Clause 15.2 ruled (failure to maintain a high standard of ethical conduct).
The Panel noted it was not necessarily inappropriate for a representative to discuss funding issues with health professionals, provided discussions comply with the Code.
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