AUTH/1877/8/06: Shire voluntary admission over Calcichew-D3 Forte ad in MIMS (no breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1877/8/06
Company	Shire Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Product	Calcichew-D₃ Forte
Material / channel	Advertisement in MIMS (August edition); ad ref 003/0422a
Issue type	Alleged breach of undertaking (voluntary admission)
Related prior case	AUTH/1825/4/06 (misleading comparative claim about patient preference)
Clauses considered	22, 9.1, 2
Decision	No breach
Complaint received	3 August 2006
Case completed	30 August 2006
Appeal	No appeal
Publisher responsibility	MIMS took full responsibility for the incorrect copy running

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

📋

⌄

Shire voluntarily informed the PMCPA that an advertisement for Calcichew-D₃ Forte (ref 003/0422a) appeared in the August edition of MIMS despite Shire’s clear instructions that the copy be destroyed.
The ad was said to be a version of material previously found in breach in Case AUTH/1825/4/06 (the “Ten Second Trial” campaign).
MIMS took full responsibility for the incorrect copy running.
Because the issue potentially related to a breach of an undertaking, it was taken up as a formal complaint (per Paragraph 5.4 of the Constitution and Procedure).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
No breach of Clause 22 (undertakings) because the published ad did not include the comparative claim that had been ruled misleading in the earlier case.
Consequently, no breach of Clauses 9.1 or 2.

🔒

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