GP complaint about alleged disguised promotion at renal referral meeting (Trajenta) — Boehringer Ingelheim & Lilly (AUTH/2520/6/12, AUTH/2521/6/12) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case numbers	AUTH/2520/6/12 and AUTH/2521/6/12
Complainant	General practitioner
Companies	Boehringer Ingelheim Limited; Eli Lilly & Company Limited
Product	Trajenta (linagliptin)
Allegation	Disguised promotion at an educational meeting; misleading/unbalanced discussion and implied disparagement of other medicines in class
Meeting	“When to refer to the renal clinic” (held April 2012)
Materials reviewed by Panel	Invitation; speaker/consultant agreement; speaker briefing; slide deck “Referral: who, how, and if not, why not?”; statements from speaker and attending representative
Clauses considered	7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 12.1
Decision	No breach of the Code
Complaint received	25 June 2012
Case completed	14 September 2012
Appeal	No appeal
Applicable Code year	2012

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 that a jointly sponsored educational meeting on renal clinic referrals and kidney health was disguised promotion of Trajenta (linagliptin), co-promoted by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly.
The GP alleged the speaker made “unfettered reference” to Trajenta marketing messages (eg, no dose modification in renal disease; unmet need vs class; implied other class medicines were suboptimal/unsafe; improved compliance due to single strength) without counterbalance.
The companies said the meeting was requested by a GP partner for service/education on referral pathways; the speaker (suggested by the GP) created their own slides; the invitation described an educational meeting; slides were reviewed to ensure no promotional content.
The companies provided the slide deck (“Referral: who, how, and if not, why not?”), speaker/consultant agreement, speaker briefing, and statements from the speaker and attending representative that Trajenta was not discussed.
The complainant did not respond when asked to comment on the companies’ response.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel found the complainant did not establish (on the balance of probabilities) that Trajenta was discussed at the meeting.
With no evidence of product discussion, the Panel found no basis for the alleged misleading/unbalanced comparisons, disparagement, or disguised 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