AUTH/3454/1/21 - Employee v Sanofi

Briefing materials for representatives

  • Received
    20 January 2021
  • Case number
    AUTH/3454/1/21
  • Applicable Code year
    2019
  • Completed
    08 September 2021
  • No breach Clause(s)
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal

Case Summary

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant, who described themselves as a Sanofi representative, complained about briefing materials for Toujeo Coach – a patient support programme for adults prescribed Toujeo.

Toujeo (insulin glargine solution (300 units/ml) for injection in a pre-filled pen) was indicated for the treatment of diabetes mellitus.

The complainant noted that he/she had raised concerns with his/her manager and the marketing department but nothing had changed. The complainant stated that an email was sent regarding an approved invitation for a Toujeo Coach webinar aimed at health professionals, but a follow-up email informed the representatives of an error using the invitation. The complainant stated that rather than correcting the error and approving the content, the representatives were asked to copy and paste the email invitation and send it themselves. The complainant submitted that he/she had raised concerns that copying and pasting an approved email invitation might lead to errors and data being missed – none of those concerns were listened to.

The complainant stated that as part of the same email trail, representatives were asked to track their emails and send in how many people they had sent the email to. This might have led to representatives feeling pressurised to send the email to as many people as possible whether compliant or not. The complainant further noted that in one case a named colleague had possibly sent uncompliant reminder emails.

Finally, the complainant expressed his/her concerns about the culture that the above promoted and how the issues he/she had raised had been ignored.

The detailed response from Sanofi is given below.

The Panel noted that the representatives were provided with a certified email invitation and associated certified briefing document which advised representatives to open the email attached and send it directly from their professional mailbox. The Panel noted Sanofi’s submission that the only amendments permissible were the names and email addresses, and that the briefing did not allow the content or title of the original email to be amended. The briefing stated ‘if you cannot reuse the invite multiple times, simply copy and paste the content which should be identical each time. Do not amend/edit the content or title of the original email’.

The Panel considered that the instruction to copy and paste the contents of the email if the template could not be sent directly was consistent with the certified email briefing. The Panel did not have any evidence before it that the briefing document advocated, either directly or indirectly, any course of action which would be likely to lead to a breach of the Code or that ‘copying and pasting’ the certified content of the email template by any representative had led to errors or that data from the original, certified email content was missed as alleged. The Panel thus ruled no breaches of the Code.

The Panel noted Sanofi’s submission that the head office organiser requested an indication of the number of invites sent by the representatives to health professionals to gauge the level of interest and to anticipate the potential number of attendees for each event which in the Panel's view was not unreasonable. The Panel noted Sanofi’s submission that representatives did not have any associated contact metrics attached to the activity; there was no evidence of a direction or pressuring to achieve a target number of responses.

The Panel did not consider there was evidence that being asked to track their emails and notify the company would have pressurised representatives to send the email to as many people as possible, whether compliant or not as alleged. The briefing included detailed compulsory criteria regarding which health professionals could be invited to the webinar. The Panel did not consider that the request advocated, either directly or indirectly, any course of action which would be likely to lead to a breach of the Code and no breach was ruled.

The Panel further noted that the complainant referred to an email, in which a named representative stated that he/she had sent reminder emails to approximately 10 of the 20 recipients that had been sent the original email invitation; the complainant alleged this might have been uncompliant. The Panel noted Sanofi’s submission that the named representative had no recollection of the email highlighted by the complainant and that there was no record in its customer relationship management (CRM) system of the representative sending reminder emails. The Panel noted that the complainant bore the burden of proof and did not consider that he/she had established that the representative had not maintained a high standard of ethical conduct based on his/her allegations. The Panel, based on the evidence before it, ruled no breach of the Code.

The Panel noted its comments and rulings above, and on the evidence before it, the Panel did not consider that Sanofi had failed to maintain high standards and no breach of the Code was ruled.