CSL Vifor: NHS IV iron service alleged to be disguised promotion for Ferinject (AUTH/3706/11/22) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3706/11/22
Company	CSL Vifor
Complainant	Ex-employee (as stated in report)
Medicine(s)	Ferinject (ferric carboxymaltose); competitor referenced: Monofer (ferric derisomaltose)
Main issue	Alleged disguised promotion/inducement via a non-promotional NHS service and alleged product-biased targeting
Applicable Code year	2021
Clauses considered	2, 5.1, 15.6, 23.1, 23.2
Decision	No breach of the Code
Complaint received	14 November 2022
Case completed	17 August 2023
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	None
Source	https://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/completed-cases/auth37061122-complainant-v-csl-vifor

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 ex-employee complained about CSL Vifor’s non-promotional service/tools offered to NHS Trusts to support pre-operative anaemia screening and treatment service development.
The complainant alleged the activity was designed to increase IV iron use and, ultimately, Ferinject (ferric carboxymaltose) use.
It was alleged the service was only offered to hospitals where Ferinject was commonly used, and not to hospitals where a competitor product (Monofer; ferric derisomaltose) was most commonly prescribed.
The complainant accepted the associated materials were non-promotional and did not directly mention Ferinject.
CSL Vifor denied targeting based on product usage and said its focus was based on need/opportunity using Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) and gaps versus CQUIN CCG06 targets, aligned to NICE NG24.
The Panel noted some materials appeared heavily focused on IV iron services (with limited oral iron content), and it was concerned the service was proactively offered by staff with dual promotional/non-promotional roles—though briefed to separate service discussions from promotion.
The Panel did not have data showing which Trusts were offered the service, nor Ferinject usage before/after, and the complainant provided no evidence to substantiate the targeting allegation.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the ABPI Code of Practice (2021).
The Panel considered the complainant had not established (on the balance of probabilities) that the service was used to increase Ferinject use by selectively offering it to Ferinject-using Trusts.
The Panel also considered the complainant had not established that the service was disguised promotion of Ferinject, noting the materials did not refer directly or indirectly to a specific IV iron.

📖

⌄

Clause 2 Requirement that activities or materials must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry – No breach
Clause 5.1 Requirement to maintain high standards – No breach
Clause 15.6 Requirement that promotional material and activities must not be disguised – No breach
Clause 23.1 Requirement that donations are freely given for the purpose of supporting healthcare with no consequent obligation on the recipient organisation to provide goods or services to the benefit of the pharmaceutical company in return. – No breach
Clause 23.2 Requirement that donations to healthcare organisations do not constitute an inducement to recommend and/or prescribe, purchase, supply, sell or administer specific medicines. – No 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