AUTH/3105/10/18: Pharmacy team leader v Eli Lilly — compassionate supply of Olumiant (No breach)

📅 2018 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

Case numberAUTH/3105/10/18
ComplainantPharmacy team leader (hospital pharmacist)
CompanyEli Lilly and Company Limited
MedicineOlumiant (baricitinib) 4mg tablets
IssueAlleged failure to follow hospital governance/procurement procedures for compassionate supply; alleged bypass of hospital pharmacy; concern about pre-screening checks
Applicable Code year2016
Clauses consideredClause 2; Clause 9.1; Clause 15.4
DecisionNo breach of Clause 15.4, Clause 9.1, or Clause 2
Complaint received08 October 2018
Case completed25 February 2019
AppealNo appeal
SanctionsNone stated

Download the full case report (PDF)


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
📋

What happened

  • A hospital pharmacy team leader complained about a compassionate (free of charge) supply of Olumiant (baricitinib) 4mg tablets requested by a named consultant rheumatologist for a complex patient whose funding request had been rejected.
  • The complainant alleged Lilly did not confirm the hospital pharmacy was aware of the request and therefore did not follow the trust’s governance for procurement of medicines.
  • The complainant alleged it was suggested the medicine could be dispensed via a local community pharmacy, potentially bypassing the specialist hospital pharmacy team.
  • The complainant raised concerns that the patient had not completed essential pre-screening checks before Lilly agreed supply.
  • Lilly stated the request was unsolicited from the consultant, that the patient was undergoing pre-treatment biologic screening per the SPC, and that it only dispatched product after the hospital pharmacy purchasing route was followed (purchase order raised by the hospital pharmacy/purchasing service).
  • Timeline highlights (2018): request discussed (30 Jul), details clarified (16–22 Aug), supply approved (31 Aug), consultant informed and screening noted (10 Sep), hospital pharmacy requested to dispense (11 Sep), Lilly spoke to complainant/pharmacy and obtained PO (12–13 Sep), product delivered to hospital pharmacy (14 Sep).
⚖️

Outcome

  • No breach of Clause 15.4.
  • No breach of Clause 9.1.
  • No breach of Clause 2.
  • The Panel noted the complainant did not respond to requests for comments on Lilly’s response.
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value
£249/year
Annual — save £99
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access

⭐ Business Intelligence Access

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export.

Request Access →
⭐ Flagship Programme

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

12 modules. 12 weeks. Final Signatory readiness. The industry standard for ABPI Code signatories — £995 + VAT.

Enrol — AQP Path Learn more

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free
🎓 AQP Training