Lundbeck: Cipralex cost comparison bar chart found misleading (AUTH/1805/3/06)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1805/3/06
Parties	General Practitioner v Lundbeck
Product	Cipralex (escitalopram)
Material	Cost comparison bar chart (ref 0205/ESC/525/176 (1342))
Main issue	Chart implied generic competitor prices but used branded prices; basis of comparison not sufficiently clear
Applicable Code year	2003
Breach clauses	Clause 7.2
Complaint received	28 February 2006
Case completed	04 April 2006
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated

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

📋

⌄

A general practitioner complained about a cost comparison bar chart for Cipralex (escitalopram) shown by a Lundbeck representative.
The chart appeared to show Cipralex’s price versus “generic competitors”, but on close inspection the comparator prices were for branded versions of those medicines.
Where generics were available, the generic versions were generally much cheaper than the branded prices shown, creating a misleading impression of Cipralex’s relative cost.
The chart compared 28 days’ standard doses of Cipralex 10mg with eight antidepressants listed by generic name: *citalopram 20mg, duloxetine 60mg, *fluoxetine 20mg, mirtazapine 15mg, *paroxetine 20mg, reboxetine 8mg, sertraline 50mg and venlafaxine XL 75mg.
An asterisk appeared next to citalopram, fluoxetine and paroxetine with a footnote “manufacturer’s branded price”.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled the comparison was misleading because the basis of the comparison was not sufficiently clear.
The cost of all products shown was the manufacturer’s branded price, not only those marked with an asterisk; the asterisked products were simply those where generics were available.
Breach found of Clause 7.2 (Applicable Code year: 2003).
No appeal.

🔒

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