AUTH/2956/5/17: Ex-employee v Napp (Flutiform) — no breach over switching KPIs, cost-saving claims, call-rate pressure and speaker meetings | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2956/5/17
Parties	Ex-employee v Napp Pharmaceuticals Limited
Product	Flutiform (fluticasone propionate/formoterol) MDI
Main issues	Switching KPIs; cost-saving claims; pressure/communications; data protection concerns; “simple switch” messaging; therapy review service (MEGS) separation; call rates; speaker meetings
Complaint received	8 May 2017
Case completed	29 August 2017
Applicable Code year	2016
Appeal	No appeal
Decision	No breach
Clauses considered	2, 7.2, 7.4, 9.1, 15.9, 19.1, 19.2
Sanctions	None

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 ex-representative (engaged via a third-party agency) complained about Napp’s promotional practices for Flutiform, including switching activity from Seretide Evohaler.
Allegations included: unrealistic switching KPIs; misleading cost-saving claims due to local rebates/discounts; sustained pressure from an area business manager (ABM) including weekly email updates; potential data protection issues in emails discussing prescribing/switch data; omission of ACOS/COPD considerations; “simple switch” messaging being misleading; and use of nurse/pharmacist therapy review services allegedly linked to switching to Flutiform.
Further allegations covered pressure to increase call/contact rates without referencing Code limits, and use of “Chest Sounds” speaker meetings as an access tactic; plus an email describing a GP group as “not of particular value”.
The Panel noted the parties’ accounts differed and assessed whether the complainant proved the allegations on the balance of probabilities.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled in relation to all allegations considered.
The Panel expressed concern about the relationship between switching promotion and the therapy review service, and noted training materials were not sufficiently clear in some respects, but still ruled no breach on the evidence provided.

🔒

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