Daiichi Sankyo: Nilemdo/Nustendi “add-on” materials didn’t make simvastatin >40mg contraindication immediately apparent (AUTH/3677/7/22)

📅 2022 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

CaseAUTH/3677/7/22
CompanyDaiichi Sankyo
ProductsNilemdo (bempedoic acid); Nustendi (bempedoic acid and ezetimibe)
Main issue“Add-on” promotional messaging did not make the contraindication with simvastatin >40mg immediately apparent on key slides/pages; briefing materials did not sufficiently reinforce the need to mention it whenever discussing combination with statins/LLTs.
Materials in scope (examples)Sales aids: BEM/21/0826 (short), BEM/21/0828 (long); Briefing docs: BEM/21/0827, BEM/21/0829; Leavepieces: BEM/21/0653, BEM/21/0816
Time period referencedApril 2021–February 2022 (use of materials during sales calls, per complaint)
Complaint received07 July 2022
Case completed25 October 2023
Applicable Code2021
Breach clauses2; 5.1; 6.1; 6.2
No breach clauses6.1; 17.1
SanctionsUndertaking received; Advertisement
AppealNo appeal

Download the full case report (PDF)


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
📋

What happened

  • An anonymous, contactable health professional complained about promotion of Nilemdo (bempedoic acid) and Nustendi (bempedoic acid/ezetimibe).
  • Concern: representatives used sales aids and hard-copy leavepieces (used during April 2021–February 2022) that discussed adding Nilemdo/Nustendi to statins/other lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) but did not make clear the contraindication with simvastatin doses >40mg.
  • Concern also covered whether representatives were properly trained/briefed to mention the contraindication whenever discussing combination with statins/LLTs.
  • The Panel assessed the materials provided by the company for the relevant period, including sales aids (refs BEM/21/0826 and BEM/21/0828), leavepieces (refs BEM/21/0653 and BEM/21/0816) and briefing documents (refs BEM/21/0827 and BEM/21/0829).
  • The Panel emphasised an established principle: companies cannot rely on footnotes or prescribing information to negate a misleading impression; and in modular/digital materials, each slide/page must stand alone.
⚖️

Outcome

  • Breach found: sales aids and leavepieces were misleading because slides/pages promoting “add-on” use with statins/LLTs did not make the simvastatin >40mg contraindication immediately apparent.
  • Breach found: the misleading impression (that products could be used with any dose of any statin/simvastatin) was unsubstantiated.
  • Breach found: briefing documents did not make it sufficiently clear that the contraindication must be mentioned whenever discussing combination with statins/LLTs; therefore reps were not given clear briefing on this point.
  • Breach found: multiple materials had the same issue; the Panel considered the repeated failure particularly serious, with potential to prejudice patient safety and bring discredit on the industry.
  • No breach found (narrow grounds): it was not established that representatives failed to mention the contraindication during specific sales calls (complainant provided no specific call details).
  • No breach found: it was not established that representatives had not been trained properly on mandatory contraindications (the allegation related to general training activities; evidence did not establish inadequate training).
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value
£249/year
Annual — save £99
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access

⭐ Charter Member — Until 31 March

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export. £1,999/year £2,499

Get Charter Access →

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free