AUTH/3425/11/20 & AUTH/3426/11/20: RCGP Overdiagnosis Group complaint about Eliquis AF pulse-check email (No breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3425/11/20 and AUTH/3426/11/20
Complainant	Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Overdiagnosis Group
Company	Pfizer Limited and Bristol-Myers Squibb (the Alliance)
Product	Eliquis (apixaban)
Material	Promotional email campaign via Pulse (ref PP-ELI-GBR-6974)
Audience / distribution	Sent via Pulse to general practitioners; one-off distribution to 17,100 GPs (6 November 2020)
Main issue alleged	Omission of UK NSC (Aug 2019) advice against systematic population screening for AF; alleged lack of balance/completeness and COVID touching concerns
Clauses considered	2, 7.2, 9.1
Applicable Code year	2019
Panel decision	No breach of the Code
Appeal	No appeal
Complaint received	15 November 2020
Case completed	11 June 2021

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

📋

⌄

The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Overdiagnosis Group complained about a promotional email for Eliquis (apixaban) (ref PP-ELI-GBR-6974) sent jointly by Pfizer Limited and Bristol-Myers Squibb (the Alliance) via Pulse.
The email promoted a manual pulse check for atrial fibrillation (AF) in people over 65 during influenza vaccination clinics.
The complainants alleged the email effectively promoted AF screening and was not balanced/up-to-date/complete because it did not mention the UK National Screening Committee (NSC) August 2019 position not recommending a national (systematic population) screening programme for AF.
The complainants also argued the email omitted relevant context from NICE guidance (CG180) about when to take a pulse to detect AF (not framed as screening), and raised concerns about increased touching during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Authority asked the companies to consider Clauses 2, 7.2 and 9.1.
Pfizer responded on behalf of both companies, stating the email was certified (Clause 14.1) and was intended to describe opportunistic case-finding during routine flu clinics, not systematic population screening.
The email was a one-off distribution sent by Pulse to 17,100 general practitioners on 6 November 2020.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel considered the email clearly referred to opportunistic screening/case-finding, not systematic population screening.
The Panel did not consider the omission of the NSC (2019) position on systematic population screening made the email misleading.
No breach of the Code was ruled.
No breach was ruled for Clause 7.2, and consequently no breaches of Clauses 9.1 and 2.
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