MSD voluntary admission: Steglatro formulary guide visible to the public due to transparent journal wrappers (AUTH/3398/10/20)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3398/10/20
Company	Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited
Product	Steglatro (ertugliflozin)
Material	Formulary decision guide (ref GB-STE-00367)
Channel	Insert sent with Guidelines in Practice journal mailing
Issue	Some copies mailed in transparent wrappers, making POM promotional material visible to the public in transit
Scale	~3,300 copies (~18% of ~18,000 circulation) plus one or more media buying agency contacts
Complaint received	08 October 2020
Case completed	15 March 2021
Applicable Code year	2019
Breach clauses	9.1, 26.1
No breach clauses	2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions: Not stated
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

📋

⌄

Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) placed a promotional formulary decision guide for Steglatro (ertugliflozin) (ref GB-STE-00367) inside the September 2020 distribution of Guidelines in Practice, a journal intended for health professionals and formulary/clinical guideline decision makers.
The journal was mailed in an opaque bespoke wrapper so contents would not be visible to the general public.
During the print run, the printer ran out of opaque wrap and an employee decided to use a transparent wrapper for some copies.
As a result, the Steglatro promotional insert (including the brand name and indication) would have been visible to members of the public (eg postal workers) while in transit.
Approximately 3,300 copies (about 18% of ~18,000 circulation) were sent in transparent wrappers, plus one or more contacts at media buying agencies.
MSD was notified on 21 September 2020, investigated, and concluded all copies had already been posted so no corrective action could be taken for the mailing already in transit.
MSD made a voluntary admission which, under the Constitution and Procedure, was treated as a complaint.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 26.1 (promotion of a prescription only medicine to the public).
Breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards not maintained).
No breach of Clause 2 (the Panel did not consider the circumstances warranted particular censure).
No appeal.
Undertaking received; additional sanctions: Not stated.

🔒

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