AUTH/3453/1/21: Anonymous v Pfizer — conduct of a representative (Xeljanz) (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3453/1/21
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable complainant (described as a concerned doctor)
Company	Pfizer Limited
Product	Xeljanz (tofacitinib)
Therapy area / context	Gastroenterology; ulcerative colitis; Covid-19 pandemic engagement restrictions
Main allegations	Over-contacting/ignoring request not to see reps; using different names; off-licence promotion for Covid-19 and irritable bowel disease; suggesting case studies without patient consent
Applicable Code year	2019
Clauses considered	3.2, 7.2, 7.4, 9.1, 15.2, 15.4, 15.9
Panel decision	No breach of Clauses 3.2, 7.2, 7.4, 9.1, 15.2, 15.4 and 15.9
Complaint received	3 February 2021
Case completed	15 July 2021
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	None (No breach; additional sanctions not stated)

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, non-contactable complainant (a “concerned doctor”) complained on behalf of a gastroenterology team about a named Pfizer representative promoting Xeljanz (tofacitinib).
Allegations included that the representative:
- Called on the hospital team and continued to email/telephone after being told the team did not want to see representatives due to Covid-19 concerns.
- Used different names to try to secure appointments.
- Promoted Xeljanz outside the licensed indication, allegedly suggesting it would help patients with Covid-19 and irritable bowel disease by keeping them out of hospital.
- Asked the team to consider writing up case studies without patient consent, leading to a loss of trust.
Pfizer conducted a formal HR investigation and temporarily withdrew the colleague from customer-facing activity during the investigation.
Pfizer stated it had implemented pandemic-specific engagement controls (virtual-only, guidance on outreach, recording “touchpoint calls”, limits on repeated contact, and certified briefings including Covid-19-specific content).
Pfizer’s investigation (call recording system review, email patterns, phone bill review, activity levels, and interviews) found no evidence supporting the allegations; the representative denied all allegations.
The Panel noted the complainant provided insufficient detail to identify the particular circumstances clearly, and the parties’ accounts differed.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel found the complainant had not established the case on the balance of probabilities, particularly as the complainant was non-contactable and provided insufficient detail.
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