Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare: BMJ advertisements for Gaviscon Advance misleadingly extrapolated in-vitro data to clinical (in-vivo) claims

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2138/7/08
Case reference	G-NHS-UK-51-07
Complainant	Public health physician
Respondent/company	Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Limited
Product(s)	Gaviscon Advance (sodium alginate and potassium bicarbonate)
Material/channel	Two journal advertisements (“Advertisement Feature”) in the BMJ (double-page spreads with prescribing information)
Key issue	In-vitro data presented in advertisements but conclusions implied in-vivo/clinical oesophageal protection and clinical benefit without supporting data; misleading overall impression
Dates (received/completed if stated)	Complaint received 7 July 2008; case completed 26 August 2008
Appeal	Not stated
Code year	2008 Constitution and Procedure (Clause 7.2 noted as same in 2008 Code as in 2006 Code)
Breaches/clauses	Clause 7.2
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

📋

⌄

A public health physician complained about two advertisements for Gaviscon Advance (sodium alginate and potassium bicarbonate) issued by Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Limited and published in the BMJ.
The advertisements were titled: (1) “The Role for Liquid Alginate Suspension (Gaviscon Advance) in the Protection of the Oesophagus Against Damage by Bile in the Refluxate” (BMJ 22 March) and (2) “...Against Damage by Pepsin in the Refluxate” (BMJ 12 April).
The complainant alleged the advertisements presented in-vitro data but made claims about expected in-vivo effects, misleading readers by extrapolating to clinical situations without substantiation.
Reckitt Benckiser argued the abstracts clearly related to in-vitro studies, did not claim in-vivo studies had been conducted, and were presented in full as peer-reviewed poster abstracts previously presented at scientific meetings; the BMJ audience was health professionals.
The Panel noted the abstracts, originally written for a scientific purpose, were being used unchanged for a promotional purpose, with prescribing information included at the bottom of each double-page spread.

⚖️

⌄

🔒

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