Astellas breached ABPI Code after repeated calls to pharmacist who said they didn’t speak to industry (AUTH/3182/4/19)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3182/4/19
Parties	Pharmacist v Astellas
Issue	Frequency of telephone calls by representatives; wishes of individual not observed
Medicines mentioned	Betmiga (mirabegron); enzalutamide (Xtandi)
Applicable Code year	2016
Complaint received	10 April 2019
Case completed	2 October 2019
Panel finding	Breach Clauses 15.2 and 15.4; No breach Clauses 15.9 and 9.1
Key timing detail	Four calls by three representatives between 16 January and 3 April 2019
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
Appeal	No appeal
Source	https://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/completed-cases/auth3182419-pharmacist-v-astellas

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 pharmacist responsible for introducing new medicines to a state-funded pharmaceutical service complained about the frequency of telephone calls from Astellas representatives.
The calls related mainly to Betmiga (mirabegron) (overactive bladder) and also queries about enzalutamide (Xtandi) and the local formulary process.
The pharmacist said they had received calls on a regular basis for two or more years and possibly four calls in the last month, describing them as inconvenient, intrusive and distressing (they had not logged dates/times).
Astellas’ CRM showed no recorded calls in the region since November 2016; Astellas said the calls were not recorded because they were viewed as non-promotional investigatory/process enquiries.
The Panel identified that three representatives telephoned the pharmacist four times between 16 January and 3 April 2019 about formulary queries.
Representative 3 made two attempts (21 March and 3 April) and left voicemails despite knowing the pharmacist had told another representative “I don’t talk to Industry”.
The pharmacist was listed as the single designated contact on a government formulary webpage (name and phone number; no email/postal address).

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 15.4 (wishes of the individual not observed; inconvenience).
Breach of Clause 15.2 (failure to maintain a high standard of ethical conduct).
No breach of Clause 15.9 (briefing material not shown to advocate actions likely to lead to a breach).
No breach of Clause 9.1 (no failure to maintain high standards by the company in this regard).
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