GSK v Takeda: Competact mailer cost claim ruled misleading after Drug Tariff change (AUTH/2012/6/07)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2012/6/07
Parties	GlaxoSmithKline v Takeda
Product/material	Competact (pioglitazone/metformin) mailer (ref CM060811)
Main issue	Comparative cost claim stated Competact (unlike other glitazone combinations) cost less than its constituent parts; claim became misleading after January Drug Tariff change and because Avandamet also cost less than its parts
Key dates	Mailer posted 2 January 2007; complaint received 21 June 2007; case completed 3 September 2007; last sent out (per Takeda) 16 May
Applicable Code year	2006
Breach clauses	2, 7.2, 7.3, 9.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Advertisement (additional sanction)
Appeal	No appeal
Panel note	Representative reprinted and mailed locally outside SOPs; Takeda initially lacked records of continued use; Panel did not report to Appeal Board under Paragraph 8.2

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

📋

⌄

GlaxoSmithKline complained about a Takeda mailer for Competact (pioglitazone/metformin) (ref CM060811).
The mailer claimed: “Unlike other glitazone combination therapies, Competact costs LESS to prescribe than its constituent parts”.
When mailed in early January 2007, GSK’s Avandamet (rosiglitazone/metformin) also cost less than its constituent parts, so the “unlike other” comparative was not true.
The mailer was posted on 2 January 2007, when a new NHS Drug Tariff price for generic metformin had come into effect; Takeda did not recheck the January Drug Tariff before sending.
During inter-company dialogue (from April 2007), Takeda acknowledged the pricing error and said it had stopped using the claim; a revised mailer removed the claim.
Takeda initially described the mailer as a one-off and said it was not used after the issue was identified; later it emerged a representative had reprinted the mailer locally and mailed it in his region outside SOPs.
Takeda later advised the mailer was last sent out on 16 May.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled the claim was misleading and unfair.
The Panel ruled Takeda failed to maintain a high standard by not checking the January Drug Tariff before sending the mailing.
The Panel ruled that continued use of a claim acknowledged in inter-company correspondence to be in breach brought discredit on the industry.
The Panel decided not to report Takeda to the Appeal Board under Paragraph 8.2 (given the circumstances and the role of an individual acting outside SOPs).
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