Bayer: ‘Mirena training workshop’ weblink found misleading (EvoInserter training expectation) — AUTH/2579/2/13 | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2579/2/13
Complainant	General practitioner
Company	Bayer
Product	Mirena (levonorgestrel intrauterine system) / EvoInserter insertion device
Issue	“Mirena training workshop” weblink used to access all Mirena meetings, creating misleading expectation of EvoInserter training
Complaint received	20 February 2013
Case completed	28 March 2013
Applicable Code year	2012
Breach clauses	Clause 7.2
No breach clauses	Clauses 12.1, 9.1
Sanction	Undertaking received
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 GP complained he was misled into attending a meeting he believed would provide hands-on training to fit Mirena using the new EvoInserter insertion device.
The Mirena online training material said users could familiarise themselves with EvoInserter technique via an online module and/or by attending a “Mirena training workshop”, accessed via a “Mirena training workshop” link.
Bayer ran EvoInserter workshops in May–June 2012 (pre-launch) and removed dates from the website as each workshop occurred.
However, Bayer used the same “Mirena training workshop” link as the access point for all Mirena meetings throughout the year, even when the meeting title/content changed (eg, later “Mirena Medical Education Programme” meetings).
The complainant received logistics emails and an agenda for the Leicester meeting showing presentations on contraception and a counselling workshop (not practical EvoInserter training).
Bayer said the agenda was sent multiple times and that at the meeting there was a promotional stand where employees could demonstrate EvoInserter; demonstrator devices and models were available for practice.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 7.2 (misleading) in relation to the website link arrangements.
No breach of Clause 12.1 (disguised promotion) regarding the meeting invitation/agenda.
No breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards).
Sanction: Undertaking received.
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