Anonymous GP v Pfizer: Eliquis rep alleged to disparage Xarelto and overstate safety—no breach (AUTH/3467/2/21)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3467/2/21
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable complainant describing themself as a GP
Company	Pfizer Limited
Product	Eliquis (apixaban)
Issue type	Conduct of a representative; alleged disparagement/comparative safety claim
Allegation	Rep disparaged Xarelto (rivaroxaban) and claimed Eliquis had better safety and should be used to address mortality in primary care
Interaction described	Brief telephone call (~90 seconds/1.5 minutes); no materials used
Key data referenced (per Pfizer)	Aristotle (Granger et al 2011) apixaban vs warfarin: reductions cited for stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding, all-cause mortality
Applicable Code year	2019
Clauses considered	Clause 2; Clause 7.2; Clause 9.1; Clause 15.1; Clause 15.2
Panel decision	No breach
Complaint received	3 February 2021
Case completed	2 July 2021
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant describing themself as a GP complained about a named Pfizer representative’s promotion of Eliquis (apixaban), an anticoagulant.
The GP alleged the representative disparaged rivaroxaban (Xarelto) and compared the two medicines, claiming Eliquis had better safety and therefore should be used to address mortality in primary care.
The GP also alleged representative standards had declined due to lack of training and that unbalanced safety discussion could directly impact patient safety.
Pfizer identified a likely brief telephone conversation in November 2020 (approx. 90 seconds/1.5 minutes) as the only interaction fitting the timeframe.
Pfizer said no materials were used; the rep discussed the ‘Detect, Protect, Perfect’ agenda briefly, noted NOAC use in the practice (particularly rivaroxaban), and asked about presenting apixaban data from the Aristotle trial (Granger et al 2011; apixaban vs warfarin).
Pfizer stated the rep quoted key endpoint reductions vs warfarin (21% stroke/systemic embolism, 33% [sic; should be 31%] major bleeding, 11% all-cause mortality) and denied making any Eliquis vs Xarelto comparisons.
The Panel noted potential confusion: after mentioning Xarelto use, the rep then cited Aristotle outcomes, and it was not clear in the accounts that the comparator was warfarin (not Xarelto).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel found the complainant had not established, on the balance of probabilities, that the representative disparaged Xarelto as alleged.
The Panel found no evidence that high standards were not maintained or that there was a direct impact on patient safety as alleged.

🔒

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