AUTH/1935/12/06: PCT complaint about sponsored ‘Primary Care Report’ on CFC-free inhalers (No breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1935/12/06
Complainant	Primary care trust assistant director of clinical services
Company	Trinity-Chiesi Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Material	Primary Care Report, special edition 3 (December 2006), four pages, on CFC-free inhalers
Product mentioned	Clenil Modulite (beclometasone dipropionate, CFC-free)
Main allegations	Disguised promotion; one-sided content; technical inaccuracies; misleading/unreferenced DoH policy statement
Clauses considered	7.2, 9.1, 10.1
Decision	No breach of the Code
Complaint received	19 December 2006
Case completed	20 February 2007
Applicable Code year	2006
Appeal	No appeal
Source	https://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/completed-cases/auth19351206-primary-care-trust-assistant-director-of-clinical-services-v-trinity-chiesi

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

⌄

An assistant director of clinical services at a primary care trust complained about a four-page “special edition 3, December 2006” of Primary Care Report covering CFC-free inhalers.
The front cover stated: “This edition of Primary Care Report is sponsored by Trinity-Chiesi Pharmaceuticals Ltd”.
The front page headline was “Becotide/Becloforte withdrawal forces treatment reviews” and discussed transition to CFC-free beclometasone dipropionate (BDP).
Trinity-Chiesi’s product Clenil Modulite was described as a “CFC-free, dose equivalent alternative” to Becotide/Becloforte.
The complainant alleged the publication presented itself as “The first choice for primary care leaders” and read like “one long advertisement” for Clenil Modulite, being one-sided and containing technical inaccuracies.
The complainant challenged an unreferenced statement of Department of Health (DoH) policy: “CFCs will no longer be considered essential in products containing inhaled steroids in the UK once two alternative products containing beclometasone are available”, saying local strategic health authority advice required two preparations of equal potency and that generic BDP would remain available until then.
The complainant also said the publication did not mention switching to cheaper generic equivalents.
The Authority asked Trinity-Chiesi to respond in relation to Clauses 7.2, 9.1 and 10.1 of the Code.
Trinity-Chiesi said the item was clearly promotional (prominent sponsorship statement; prescribing information included; distributed via representatives) and that the DoH statement reflected the 1999 UK Transition Strategy and was capable of substantiation.

⚖️

Outcome

⌄

No breach of Clause 10.1 (disguised promotion) was ruled.
No breach of Clause 7.2 (misleading claims / substantiation) was ruled regarding the DoH policy statement.
No breach of Clause 9.1 was ruled (following the no-breach findings above).
Overall case outcome: No breach of the Code.

🔒

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

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access

Key facts

What happened

Outcome

Clauses

Unlock the full case analysis

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown