AUTH/3560/9/21: Anonymous health professional complaint about pressure to sign up to diabetes review service (No breach) – Sanofi | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3560/9/21
Complainant	Anonymous health professional (described themself as a nurse); non-contactable
Company	Sanofi
Issue	Alleged pressure/harassment by an account executive to sign up to a diabetes therapy review service
Activity/service	“Diabetes Therapy Review Service” (described by Sanofi as a medically led MEGS delivered by a third-party provider)
Applicable Code year	2021
Clauses considered	Clause 17.2; Clause 17.9
Panel decision	No breach of Clause 17.2; No breach of Clause 17.9 (No breach overall)
Complaint received	26 September 2021
Case completed	31 May 2022
Appeal	No appeal
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, non-contactable complainant (describing themself as a nurse) alleged a named Sanofi diabetes representative (account executive) repeatedly asked them to sign up to a diabetes review service despite being told no.
The complainant said the request was made “as a favour” and made them feel “pressurised and harassed”.
The complainant believed the representative may have been pressured by superiors and said they would not see the representative again.
Sanofi investigated by reviewing internal briefing materials and interviewing the account executive and their manager.
Sanofi stated the “Diabetes Therapy Review Service” was a medically led MEGS activity delivered by a third party; promotional colleagues (account executives) were briefed not to discuss it and to refer any unsolicited enquiries to an MSL.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
No breach of Clause 17.2 (alleged inappropriate conduct / failure to maintain high standards) because the complainant did not establish the allegation on the balance of probabilities.
No breach of Clause 17.9 (briefing/training leading to a breach) because there was no evidence the briefing advocated conduct likely to lead to a breach.

🔒

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