Grünenthal Versatis BMJ ad: headline claim implied broader neuropathic pain use (breach upheld for Clause 3.2; other breaches overturned on appeal)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1960/2/07
Company	Grünenthal Ltd
Product	Versatis (lidocaine medicated plaster)
Material	BMJ journal advertisement (ref 042/GRTUK/VERS 12/06-12/08)
Core issue	Headline symptom claim implied broader use than licensed PHN indication; placement/prominence of indication
Applicable Code year	2006
Complaint received	16 February 2007
Case completed	17 May 2007
Panel decision	Breach Clause 3.2; breaches Clauses 7.2 and 7.10 (later appealed)
Appeal outcome	No breach of Clauses 7.2 and 7.10; Clause 3.2 breach remained
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 consultant in anaesthesia and pain management complained about a BMJ advertisement for Versatis (lidocaine medicated plaster) by Grünenthal (ref 042/GRTUK/VERS 12/06-12/08).
The complainant alleged the ad was misleading and could encourage off-licence use by implying Versatis was for “burning, shooting, stabbing” (neuropathic) pains generally, with the PHN-only licence “lost in the small print”.
The ad featured the headline claim “New for burning, shooting, stabbing pains”, the strapline “Works where it hurts”, and a visual of a young woman’s back with a broad blue swathe and pain graphics (spikes/flames/lightning).
The Authority asked Grünenthal to respond under Clauses 3.2, 7.2 and 7.10 (Code year 2006).
Panel: found the headline claim created a misleading impression of a broader indication than licensed (PHN), and also found the depiction of PHN/pain spread misleading and not encouraging rational use.
Grünenthal appealed the findings under Clauses 7.2 and 7.10.
Appeal Board: accepted the image/pain-spread depiction was not misleading as alleged and ruled no breach of Clauses 7.2 and 7.10; Clause 3.2 breach remained (accepted by the company).

⚖️

⌄

🔒

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