Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly: Abasaglar email wrongly claimed formulary approval in NHS Sunderland CCG (AUTH/2855/7/16, AUTH/2856/7/16)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case numbers	AUTH/2855/7/16 and AUTH/2856/7/16
Complainant	Pharmacist
Company	Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Company (Diabetes Alliance)
Product	Abasaglar (insulin glargine)
Material	Email (Ref UK/GLA/00177), dated 5 July 2016
Main issue	Misleading claim that Abasaglar was approved on the “NHS Sunderland CCG formulary”
Panel finding	Misleading: no apparent “NHS Sunderland CCG formulary”; Abasaglar on a CCG guideline but not on Sunderland Joint Formulary
Breach clauses	Clause 7.2
Sanction	Undertaking received
Complaint received	08 July 2016
Case completed	11 and 12 August 2016
Appeal	No appeal
Applicable Code year	2016

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 pharmacist complained about a promotional email (Ref UK/GLA/00177) sent (5 July 2016) to a nurse in an NHS clinical commissioning group (CCG).
The email subject line stated: “Biosimilar insulin glargine is approved for use in NHS Sunderland CCG”.
The email claimed that following an update to the “NHS Sunderland CCG formulary”, Abasaglar (insulin glargine) was now available to prescribe.
The complainant said Abasaglar was not on the Sunderland Joint Formulary.
Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly (via their Diabetes Alliance) said the campaign targeted HCPs in CCGs where Abasaglar was approved locally, using a third-party opt-in database, and emails were localised by CCG (including formulary status and local Lantus sales).
The Alliance’s investigation found Abasaglar was included in a Sunderland CCG guideline for type 2 diabetes, but it was not listed on the Sunderland Joint Formulary.
After being notified (6 July 2016), the Alliance halted the campaign, investigated, and sent a corrective email with an apology.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled the email was misleading because it stated Abasaglar was on the “NHS Sunderland CCG formulary” when there did not appear to be such a formulary, and Abasaglar was on a CCG guideline but not on the Sunderland Joint Formulary.
Breach found and acknowledged by the companies.
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