AUTH/3195/4/19: Anonymous v Chiesi (sponsored COPD therapy review service) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3195/4/19
Parties	Anonymous v Chiesi
Topic	Sponsored therapy review services (COPD)
Applicable Code year	2016
Complaint received	30 April 2019
Case completed	14 October 2020
Allegation trigger	Internal third-party email dated 14 August 2018 referencing “integrate client product/therapy priorities” and including a Chiesi service update
Products mentioned	Atimos Modulite (formoterol); Fostair (formoterol/beclometasone); Trimbow (beclometasone/formoterol/glycopyrronium bromide)
Clauses considered/listed	Clause 2; Clause 9.1; Clause 12.1; Clause 19.2
Decision	No breach
Appeal	Yes (by complainants, on Clause 9.1); unsuccessful
Sanctions	None

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 contactable group (describing itself as GPs, NHS leaders, pharmacists, NHS patients and current staff of a named third-party provider) complained about sponsored therapy review services delivered by that third party for multiple pharma companies, including Chiesi.
The Chiesi service related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Chiesi marketed Atimos Modulite (formoterol), Fostair (formoterol/beclometasone) and Trimbow (beclomethasone/formoterol/glycopyrronium bromide).
The complaint centred on an internal email (14 August 2018) from a senior employee of the third-party provider to its clinical team, including the phrase about “transition and integrate client product/therapy priorities”.
The complainants alleged the email showed commercial bias (therapy reviews linked to client products/return on investment), implying disguised promotion and lack of transparency.
The Authority asked Chiesi to consider Clauses 2, 9.1, 12.1 and 19.2 of the 2016 Code (attention drawn to supplementary information of Clause 19.1).
Chiesi responded that the COPD review was a non-promotional MEGS-style service aligned to GOLD/NICE and a practice-defined COPD management framework; materials declared sponsorship, did not name specific medicines, and changes remained the lead GP’s sole decision.
The Panel reviewed the full email in context and assessed whether the email’s impression translated into Code-breaching arrangements for the Chiesi COPD service.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
No breach of Clauses 19.2 and 12.1 (Panel found insufficient evidence that the Chiesi-supported COPD review failed MEGS requirements or constituted disguised promotion).
No breach of Clause 9.1 (despite serious concerns about the email’s overall impression, the complainants did not establish on the balance of probabilities that Chiesi failed to maintain high standards).
No breach of Clause 2 (consequentially, given no other breaches).
The complainants appealed the no breach of Clause 9.1; the Appeal Board upheld the Panel’s decision and the appeal was unsuccessful.

🔒

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