AUTH/3172/3/19: Anonymous v Sandoz — MSL Q&A at non-promotional meeting (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3172/3/19
Parties	Anonymous v Sandoz
Issue	Conduct of a representative (MSL) during Q&A at a Sandoz-sponsored, non-promotional educational meeting
Meeting format/location	Glasgow with video link to London
Therapy area/products mentioned	Anti-TNF biologics; Sandoz marketed Zessly (infliximab) and Hyrimoz (adalimumab)
Allegation	MSL used Q&A to influence biosimilar switching to Sandoz products by referencing TDM and alleged “free” TDM offering
Company position on TDM	Funding available on a reactive basis only; not publicised; no proactive offer; not discussed at the meeting
Panel decision	No breach of Clauses 2, 9.1, 12.1, 15.2, 18.1
Complaint received	18 March 2019
Case completed	18 September 2019
Applicable Code year	2019
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous health professional complained about questions asked by a Sandoz medical science liaison (MSL) during a panel Q&A at a Sandoz-sponsored educational meeting (Feb 2019; Glasgow with video link to London).
The event was advertised as non-promotional and covered diseases, treatment and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM).
Because the audience initially asked no questions, the MSLs chairing the meeting asked questions to stimulate discussion.
The complainant alleged the MSL asked about switching/biosimilars and then mentioned TDM, implying an attempt to influence switching to a Sandoz biosimilar because Sandoz offered “free” TDM with some biosimilars.
Sandoz stated it funded TDM for its infliximab and adalimumab products on a reactive basis only (not publicised; no proactive offer) and said its involvement in TDM funding was not mentioned at the meeting.
Sandoz provided a transcript showing the MSL asked four questions; only the fourth referred to TDM and it did so briefly in the context of anti-TNF selection and cost pressure.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel did not consider the MSL tried to influence attendees to switch to a Sandoz biosimilar due to TDM offerings.
The Panel did not consider the Q&A constituted disguised promotion or that high standards were not maintained.

🔒

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