Bayer breach over Avelox leavepiece claim implying “first choice” for chest infections (AUTH/1940/1/07)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/1940/1/07
Parties	General Practitioner v Bayer
Product	Avelox (moxifloxacin)
Material	Leavepiece (ref 6AVEL53)
Claim at issue	“In chest infections, when your first reaction is concern, your first choice should be Avelox”
Main issue	Misleading implication of “first choice” and potential inclusion of severe community acquired pneumonia (not licensed)
Applicable Code year	2006
Breach clauses	Clause 7.2
Complaint received	03 January 2007 (PDF text also states 04 January 2007)
Case completed	01 February 2007 (PDF text also states 02 February 2007)
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 the front cover headline on an Avelox (moxifloxacin) leavepiece (ref 6AVEL53) used by Bayer representatives in primary care.
The headline stated: “In chest infections, when your first reaction is concern, your first choice should be Avelox”.
The complainant said the message was misleading and suggested inappropriate first-line use for a newer antibiotic.
Bayer argued the claim was consistent with the marketing authorisation and that the licence did not specify treatment-line positioning.
The Panel considered that “chest infections which caused concern” could include severe community acquired pneumonia, for which Avelox was not licensed.
The Panel also found the wording “your first choice” implied Avelox was the (only) first choice, which was misleading.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found: Yes.
Clause breached: Clause 7.2.
Key finding: The “first choice” headline was misleading because it implied primacy/exclusivity and could be read as advocating use in severe CAP (outside the licence).
Appeal: 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