AUTH/2058/10/07: Chief Pharmacist v Pfizer – Champix advertisement in Health Service Journal

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2058/10/07
Case reference	Chief Pharmacist v Pfizer
Complainant	Primary care trust chief pharmacist
Respondent/company	Pfizer Limited
Product(s)	Champix (varenicline)
Material/channel	Journal advertisement in the Health Service Journal (HSJ) (ref CHA055a)
Key issue	Whether a POM advertisement in HSJ breached the Code because the journal was available to non-health professionals (public advertising concern) and whether the material was appropriate for the audience
Dates (received/completed if stated)	Complaint received 16 October 2007; case completed 5 December 2007
Appeal	Not stated
Code year	Not stated
Breaches/clauses	No breach of Clause 12.1; no breach of Clause 20.1
Sanctions	No explicit additional sanctions stated beyond the required undertaking/corrective actions described in the report

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

📋

⌄

A primary care trust chief pharmacist complained about an advertisement for Champix (varenicline) placed by Pfizer Limited in the Health Service Journal (HSJ) on 11 October 2007 (ref CHA055a).
The complainant queried whether the advertisement breached the Code because the HSJ was available to those who were not health professionals.
The Authority asked Pfizer to respond in relation to Clauses 12.1 and 20.1 of the Code.
Pfizer stated its policy was to advertise prescription only medicines only in journals distributed and read by health professionals and appropriate administrative staff.
Pfizer described the HSJ as distributed to members of the health professions and appropriate healthcare management and administrative staff, and noted the HSJ website described it as targeted at healthcare professionals.
The Panel considered the HSJ a specialist professional title and a leading source of news and information on health management and policy.
The advertisement described, in simple terms, how Champix worked, compared its quit rate with that of another medicine or placebo, and referred to its safety and tolerability profile in 4,000 patients.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled the advertisement was appropriate for a health professional/NHS management audience and found no breach of Clause 12.1.
The Panel did not accept that the advertisement was an advertisement to the public and found no breach of Clause 20.1.
Overall outcome: no breach of the Code.

🔒

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