AstraZeneca breached ABPI Code over Qtern promotional email sent via third party without valid consent and with misleading presentation (AUTH/2976/9/17)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2976/9/17
Complainant	Hospital consultant (anaesthesia and intensive care medicine)
Company	AstraZeneca UK Ltd
Product	Qtern (saxagliptin and dapagliflozin)
Channel	Promotional email distributed via a third-party professional network
Main issues	No valid prior permission; not tailored to audience; misleading/disguised promotion via subject line/sender; high standards
Subject line referenced	“AstraZeneca Qtern information”
Scale	Sent to around 3,000 health professionals
Complaint received	09 September 2017
Case completed	20 November 2017
Applicable Code year	2016
Breach clauses	7.2, 9.1, 9.9, 11.1, 12.1
Sanction	Undertaking received (additional sanctions: Not stated)
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 hospital consultant in anaesthesia and intensive care medicine complained about a promotional email for Qtern (saxagliptin/dapagliflozin) sent by AstraZeneca via a third-party professional network.
The complainant alleged the email was sent without prior permission and was not relevant to their practice.
The email promoted a fixed-dose combination and stated it was priced at a 27% discount vs the individual components, with a budget impact model available.
The complainant said the subject line (“AstraZeneca Qtern information”) implied important information (potentially safety-related) but the email was “just an advertisement”.
AstraZeneca said it targeted “Managed Markets/Payers” and relied on the third party’s consent process; it later accepted the historical consent process (“external emails” opt-in from 2002, plus a 2015 T&Cs update without affirmative action) did not meet the standard expected.
The email was sent in September 2017 to around 3,000 health professionals.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found for sending a promotional email without prior permission of the recipient.
Breach found because the material was not adequately tailored to the audience; the recipient’s need for/interest could not reasonably be assumed.
Breach found because the email’s nature was misleading/disguised (subject line and sender name suggested a clinical alert/safety information).
Breach found for failure to maintain high standards.
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