AUTH/2713/5/14: Chief Pharmacist v Eli Lilly — Strattera nurse speaker engagement (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2713/5/14
Complainant	Chief pharmacist at an NHS trust
Company	Eli Lilly
Product	Strattera (atomoxetine hydrochloride)
Activity	Proposed nurse specialist speaking engagement at a local clinical meeting (“Strattera Experience Programme”)
Allegation theme	Potential inducement/seeding research; separation of consultancy vs research; disclosure of payment
Meeting details	40-minute talk + 20-minute Q&A (proposed)
Payment	No payment made (meeting cancelled)
Applicable Code year	2014
Clauses considered	12.2, 13.2, 18.1, 20.1, 20.2
PMCPA outcome	No breach
Complaint received	02 May 2014
Case completed	01 July 2014
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

📋

⌄

An NHS trust chief pharmacist complained about Eli Lilly contacting an ADHD nurse specialist (who managed and prescribed for patients) to speak about Strattera (atomoxetine hydrochloride).
The complainant saw an email/notification stating the nurse had been contracted for “speaking, advisory board, consulting or research collaboration services”, and alleged this could be an inducement to prescribe and akin to “seeding research”.
The complainant also queried whether any payment had been disclosed.
Lilly said the nurse was contracted only for a single speaking engagement at a local clinical meeting (“Strattera Experience Programme”) and that its notification letter listed possible interaction types under a master service agreement, which may have caused confusion.
The meeting was cancelled due to the concerns raised within the trust; the nurse did not speak and no payment was made.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel accepted there was no evidence the speaker selection was inappropriate.
The Panel accepted there was no research collaboration/seeding study proposed.
Because the meeting was cancelled and no fee was paid, there was nothing to disclose (and in any event disclosure would not have been due until 2015).

🔒

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