AUTH/2052/10/07: Member of the public v Roche – MabThera (rituximab) BMJ advertisement (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2052/10/07
Complainant	Member of the public
Company	Roche Products Ltd
Medicine	MabThera (rituximab)
Material	Journal advertisement insert in the BMJ
Main issues alleged	Misleading imagery/raising unfounded hopes; inappropriate use of “Recommended by NICE” with gold medal motif
Clauses considered	7.2, 7.8, 9.5, 20.2
Outcome	No breach of the Code
Panel note	Concern that gold medal depiction could imply “winning”/superior efficacy; Roche to be advised
Complaint received	1 October 2007
Case completed	5 November 2007
Applicable Code year	2006
Appeal	No appeal

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 member of the public with rheumatoid arthritis complained about a Roche advertisement for MabThera (rituximab) placed in the BMJ (29 September).
The ad featured a black-and-white photo of an athlete performing a high jump (“Fosbury flop”) with the headline “The day perceptions changed”.
The complainant alleged the imagery was misleading, portraying a rheumatoid arthritis patient as a professional athlete and raising “unsubstantiable hopes”.
The complainant also objected to the use of “Recommended by NICE” alongside a gold medal motif, alleging the Code forbade quoting official bodies in promotional material.
The Authority asked Roche to respond in relation to Clauses 7.2, 7.8, 9.5 and 20.2.
Roche said the ad was aimed at health professionals (BMJ subscription), the athlete image was a metaphor for a paradigm shift, and market research had tested the image prior to use.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
No breach of Clauses 7.2 and 7.8: the Panel did not consider health professionals would assume MabThera would make patients similarly athletic.
No breach of Clause 9.5: NICE was not one of the bodies prohibited from being referenced in promotional material under that clause.
No breach of Clause 20.2: the BMJ was primarily aimed at health professionals; although the public might see it, it was not aimed at the public and would not give rise to unfounded hopes in that regard.
The Panel nevertheless expressed concern that the gold medal depiction linked to NICE could imply MabThera was a “winning” medicine (more effective than any other) and asked that Roche be advised of this concern.

🔒

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