AUTH/1854/6/06: Servier – Coversyl journal ad alleged to breach an undertaking (no breach)

📅 2006 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

Case numberAUTH/1854/6/06
PartiesPrincipal Hospital Pharmacist/Director v Servier Laboratories Ltd
ProductCoversyl (perindopril)
MaterialJournal advertisement (ref 06COAD339)
IssueAlleged breach of undertaking (re-use of an ad previously ruled misleading in AUTH/1756/9/05)
Clauses considered2, 9.1 and 22
DecisionNo breach of Clause 22; therefore no breach of Clauses 9.1 and 2
Complaint received27 June 2006
Case completed16 August 2006
AppealNo appeal
PublishedNovember 2006 Code of Practice Review

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
🎬 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
📋

What happened

  • A principal hospital pharmacist complained that a journal advertisement for Coversyl (perindopril) (ref 06COAD339) had been used again despite a previous ruling against a similar ad (Case AUTH/1756/9/05).
  • Because the allegation was a breach of an undertaking, the Director took the matter up (the Authority’s responsibility is to ensure compliance with undertakings).
  • The earlier case (AUTH/1756/9/05) found a claim misleading because it implied Coversyl monotherapy reduced cardiovascular (CV) events based on PROGRESS, when PROGRESS involved combination therapy and did not allow attribution to perindopril alone.
  • Servier said the current campaign was materially different (changed strapline/copy, removed EUROPA mention, removed trial logos, removed the prior claim) and that the revised copy clearly stated CV event reduction was seen when Coversyl was used as part of a blood pressure (BP) lowering regimen for patients needing more than one agent.
⚖️

Outcome

  • No breach of the Code.
  • No breach of Clause 22 (undertakings).
  • Consequently, no breach of Clauses 9.1 and 2.
🔒

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

⭐ Business Intelligence Access

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export.

Request Access →
⭐ Flagship Programme

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

12 modules. 12 weeks. Final Signatory readiness. The industry standard for ABPI Code signatories — £995 + VAT.

Enrol — AQP Path Learn more

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

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

Subscribe Free
🎓 AQP Training