Boehringer Ingelheim: market research survey invite over-emphasised payments and implied switching incentive (AUTH/2565/11/12, AUTH/2566/11/12, AUTH/2567/11/12)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case numbers	AUTH/2565/11/12; AUTH/2566/11/12; AUTH/2567/11/12
Respondent	Boehringer Ingelheim
Complainants	Head of medicines management; PCT medicines management lead; General practitioner
Activity type	Online market research survey invitation (stroke prevention in NVAF)
Products mentioned	Pradaxa (dabigatran); Xarelto (rivaroxaban); warfarin
Key compliance issue	Invitation emails over-emphasised payment and included “extra £5” wording tied to “Switched to Pradaxa/Xarelto” patient record forms; lack of company control over invitation content
Honorarium	£70 for ~60 minutes plus patient forms; additional honoraria for extra forms; extra £5 per “Switched to Pradaxa” or “Switched to Xarelto” PRF (as described in invitations)
Applicable Code year	2012
Breach findings	Clause 9.1 (in each case)
No breach findings	Clauses 2, 12.2, 18.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
Complaint received	19 November 2012 (AUTH/2565/11/12); 20 November 2012 (AUTH/2566/11/12; AUTH/2567/11/12)
Case completed	22 March 2013 (AUTH/2565/11/12; AUTH/2566/11/12); 15 March 2013 (AUTH/2567/11/12)
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

📋

⌄

Three UK health professionals complained about email invitations to participate in an online market research survey on stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).
The survey was commissioned by Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (overseas parent) and run in multiple countries; UK fieldwork was delivered via a chain of third parties/subcontractors.
Invites offered a £70 honorarium for ~60 minutes plus completion of patient record forms (minimum 2, maximum 10). Additional payments were offered for extra forms.
Some invitations included wording offering an extra £5 for each patient record form for patients “Switched to Pradaxa” or “Switched to Xarelto”, and the emails placed disproportionate emphasis on payment (including subject lines and emboldening).
The Panel noted there were no written instructions on how the survey should be communicated to potential participants, and Boehringer Ingelheim had not input/approved the invitation wording.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 12.2: the survey itself was not considered promotional/disguised promotion.
No breach of Clause 18.1: on the narrow facts (retrospective survey; overall payment level not inappropriate), the Panel did not rule the payments to be an inducement to prescribe.
No breach of Clause 2: the Panel did not consider the circumstances warranted particular censure.
Breach of Clause 9.1 in each case: high standards were not maintained due to disproportionate emphasis on payment and lack of control over invitation content, creating an unacceptable impression (including potential impression of payment for switching).

🔒

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