Vifor Ferinject: reps accused of ‘scaremongering’ about Monofer and sending promotional safety email (AUTH/2828/3/16)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2828/3/16
Complainant	Hospital clinical nurse specialist in nutrition
Company	Vifor
Product	Ferinject (ferric carboxymaltose for injection/infusion)
Main issue	Conduct of representatives; alleged scaremongering/misleading comparisons about Monofer; promotional email sent without prior permission
Competitor product referenced	Monofer (iron isomaltoside)
Key document referenced	Dutch Lareb report (‘Intravenous iron preparations and allergic reactions’)
Complaint received	21 March 2016
Case completed	7 December 2016
Applicable Code year	2016
No breach clauses	15.4
Breach clauses	2, 7.2, 7.4, 7.9, 9.1, 9.9, 15.2, 15.9
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Advertisement
Appeal	Appeal by respondent; breaches upheld

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 hospital clinical nurse specialist complained about the conduct of two Vifor representatives (a Trust Account Manager and a Regional Business Manager) promoting Ferinject (ferric carboxymaltose).
The trust used Ferinject; some departments were considering Monofer (iron isomaltoside), a competitor product.
The complainant alleged the representatives were aggressive and ‘scaremongered’ about Monofer’s safety (eg describing it as ‘very dangerous’/‘not safe’) and left staff confused and upset.
Panel/Appeal Board noted Vifor briefing materials and tools were designed for use in “threatened accounts” and included messaging around “Safety and tolerability”, accounts switching back, and the Dutch Lareb report.
After the interaction, a Lareb report link was sent via medical information following a representative’s request that misrepresented what the complainant had asked for; the medical information email included an inaccurate statement about Ferinject not being mentioned for safety concerns.
Complaint also alleged the reps “just turned up” (cold calling) and that safety data was emailed as if requested.

⚖️

⌄

Breach findings (upheld on appeal): Clauses 2, 7.2, 7.4, 7.9, 9.1, 9.9, 15.2, 15.9.
No breach: Clause 15.4 (cold calling/manner of calls) — Panel found no evidence arrangements were breached or that the complainant refused the meeting; tacit permission was inferred.
Appeal by Vifor was unsuccessful on the contested breaches; Appeal Board upheld the Panel’s rulings including Clause 2.

🔒

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