AUTH/2993/11/17: Complainant v Napp — Asthma therapy review service (no breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2993/11/17
Parties	Complainant v Napp Pharmaceuticals Limited
Activity	Asthma therapy review service (pharmacist-led; third-party providers)
Product mentioned	Flutiform (fluticasone and formoterol)
Main allegation	Conflict of interest; service favoured Napp products and moved patients to Flutiform without considering nurse/patient preferences
Applicable Code year	2016
Clauses considered	Clause 2; Clause 9.1; Clause 19.2
Panel decision	No breach
Complaint received	29 November 2017
Case completed	07 February 2018 (Completed cases page); full report also states case completed 31 January 2018
Appeal	No appeal
Additional sanctions	Not stated

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 complaint alleged a conflict of interest in Napp Pharmaceuticals’ provision/funding of pharmacist-led asthma/diabetes reviews (linked by the complainant to QOF activity).
The complainant said they had heard from “customers” that companies such as Napp favoured their own products and put patients onto them, without considering nurse/patient preferences.
One example was cited (without evidence) where a nurse said a “Napp pharmacist” moved the majority of her patients onto Flutiform and patients were unhappy.
Napp stated the service was a non-promotional therapeutic review (MEGS), delivered by third-party providers (pharmacists were not Napp employees), not a switch service, and that prescribing decisions remained with the GP/prescriber.
Napp said the service was not conditional on prescribing any Napp product and that provider briefing documents prohibited recommending specific products or writing prescriptions.
The Panel noted therapy review services are permitted under the Code, but acceptability depends on factors such as arrangements and how/to whom the service is offered; it also noted some concerns about how the services were offered and whether all features amounted to a clinical assessment of patients.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was found.
The Panel ruled the complainant had provided no evidence to support the allegation that a “Napp pharmacist” moved most patients to Flutiform without considering nurse/patient preferences.
Based on the narrow allegation, the Panel ruled no breach of Clause 19.2 and consequently no breach of Clauses 9.1 and 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