← Back to Cases
PMCPA Case

Novartis: GP alleged caller implied NHS England identity during promotional call (AUTH/3824/09/2023) – No breach

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

⌄
CaseAUTH/3824/09/2023
ComplainantHealth professional (GP)
CompanyNovartis
IssueAlleged misleading impression about representative identity (implied NHS England); alleged delayed disclosure of being from Novartis
Product/contextLeqvio (inclisiran) promotional campaign; virtual Key Account Manager service via third-party vendor
Applicable Code2021
Complaint received20 September 2023
Case completed02 December 2024
AppealNo appeal
DecisionNo breach of Clauses 5.1, 15.6, 17.2, 17.3, 17.5, 17.9
SanctionsNone stated

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

⌄
  • A GP complained about calls to their practice that appeared to be from NHS sources but were actually from pharma marketing teams; the latest call was said to be from Novartis.
  • The GP alleged the caller used a complex title (described by reception as “NHS lipid liaison manager” or similar), giving the impression they worked for NHS England.
  • The GP further alleged the caller did not identify themselves as being from Novartis until directly asked whether they were from a pharmaceutical company, and that the interaction was recorded.
  • Novartis stated it had no record of a call to the practice on 20 September 2023, but its third-party vendor (virtual Key Account Manager service supporting Leqvio (inclisiran)) had a record of a call to the practice on 18 September 2023.
  • The third-party representative stated they introduced themselves as being from Novartis and referenced working with NHS England and the AHSN to roll out an inclisiran programme; they said the GP continued the call and the discussion included which patients might benefit from Leqvio and top-line trial results.
  • Novartis provided a scheduling script (labelled for “connection agents” but said to be used by virtual representatives too) and a remote detailing consent process SOP requiring the caller to state company name and purpose and to obtain/record permission to deliver promotional information by phone.
  • The Panel noted the importance of clear documentation and queried why a script labelled for connection agents did not clearly state it was also intended for representatives, and that separate bespoke scripts would be expected given distinct roles.
⚖️

Outcome

⌄
  • No breach of Clause 5.1.
  • No breach of Clause 15.6.
  • No breach of Clause 17.2.
  • No breach of Clause 17.3.
  • No breach of Clause 17.5.
  • No breach of Clause 17.9.
  • The Panel considered the exact date of the call was not material to its rulings.
  • The Panel noted the difficulty of determining precisely what was said in “one word against the other” complaints and that the complainant bears the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.
🔒

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
← All Cases Book a Free Compliance Call

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

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

Subscribe Free