The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has initiated an investigation into Vifor Pharma, the manufacturer of Ferinject, an intravenous treatment for iron deficiency. The inquiry, which began earlier this year, focused on whether Vifor Pharma restricted competition by spreading misinformation about the safety of a competing product, Monofer, produced by Pharmacosmos.

Iron deficiency anaemia, a condition characterized by a lack of iron leading to reduced red blood cells, often requires intravenous treatments when oral medications are unsuitable. The CMA's investigation specifically targeted the claims made by Vifor Pharma regarding the safety of its product compared to Monofer, which is crucial for patients with long-term health conditions or those preparing for major surgeries.

In response to the CMA's concerns, Vifor Pharma has agreed to several commitments, including a £23 million payment to healthcare systems across the UK. This payment addresses the potential financial impact of misleading claims on the NHS. Additionally, Vifor Pharma will correct any misleading communications sent to healthcare professionals and implement measures to prevent future misinformation.

If the CMA accepts these commitments, they will become legally binding, allowing the investigation to conclude without a formal determination of whether Vifor Pharma violated competition law. This approach aims to expedite the benefits to the NHS and ensure fair competition in the pharmaceutical market.

Juliette Enser, Executive Director for Competition Enforcement, emphasized the importance of accurate claims in the pharmaceutical industry, noting that misleading information can significantly affect treatment decisions made by healthcare professionals and the well-being of patients. The CMA's investigation marks a significant step in enforcing competition law in the pharmaceutical sector, with previous cases resulting in substantial fines totaling around £400 million.

The CMA will consult on the proposed commitments until January 17, 2025, before making a final decision. This case represents a notable instance of the CMA addressing misleading claims under its competition law enforcement powers.