AUTH/2114/4/08: Pharmacist complaint about “Reflux super-suppressant” claim for Gaviscon Advance (BMJ advertisement)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2114/4/08
Case reference	Practice Pharmacist v Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare
Complainant	Practice pharmacist at a medical centre
Respondent/company	Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Limited
Product(s)	Gaviscon Advance (sodium alginate/potassium bicarbonate)
Material/channel	BMJ journal advertisement/advertorial
Key issue	Strapline “Reflux super-suppressant” implied unsubstantiated general superiority and was misleading
Dates (received/completed if stated)	Complaint received 7 April 2008; case completed 28 May 2008
Appeal	Not stated
Code year	Not stated
Breaches/clauses	Breaches of Clauses 7.2, 7.4, 7.10; no breach of Clause 9.1
Sanctions	No explicit additional sanctions stated beyond the required undertaking/corrective actions described in the report

Download the full case report (PDF)

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

📋

What happened

⌄

A practice pharmacist at a medical centre complained about the strapline “Reflux super-suppressant” used in an advertisement/advertorial for Gaviscon Advance (sodium alginate/potassium bicarbonate) issued by Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Limited.
The material appeared in the BMJ (the advertorial is stated as appearing on 5 April).
The complainant argued that “super” implied either (a) a comparison with other reflux suppressants without justification/references, or (b) higher quality than alternatives without qualification/references.
The complainant alleged breaches of Clauses 7 and 9 of the Code; the Authority asked the company to consider Clauses 7.2, 7.4, 7.10 and 9.1.
Reckitt Benckiser said “super” was not comparative in context and was intended as a statement about comprehensive efficacy, supported by licensed indications (including symptoms of laryngopharyngeal reflux such as hoarseness, sore throats and cough) and use alongside acid suppression therapy.
Reckitt Benckiser also argued that, even if interpreted comparatively, clinical and in vitro data supported “super,” including raft strength/resilience and duration of action comparisons, and that Gaviscon Advance had unique licensed indications.
The Panel considered “super-suppressant” implied qualities/properties well beyond other reflux suppressants and amounted to a strong, broad claim of general superiority requiring substantiation.
The Panel noted Gaviscon Advance was the only reflux suppressant licensed for certain laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms, and that submitted data showed better raft strength/resilience than products tested, but not all available reflux suppressants had been examined and duration comparisons were limited.
The Panel also noted there was no specific mention in proton pump inhibitor SPCs in relation to the company’s claim about concomitant treatment, and that some “unique” features were only unique because comparable data for other products had not been generated.

⚖️

Outcome

⌄

The Panel ruled that “reflux super-suppressant” was a claim for general superiority which could not be substantiated.
The Panel ruled the claim was misleading.
Breaches were ruled under Clauses 7.2, 7.4 and 7.10.
No breach was ruled under Clause 9.1 (high standards).

🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

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

AUTH/2114/4/08: Pharmacist complaint about “Reflux super-suppressant” claim for Gaviscon Advance (BMJ advertisement)

Key facts

What happened

Outcome

Unlock the full case analysis

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown