Schering-Plough: NeoClarityn ‘triple stopping power’ ad misleading on ‘anti-inflammatory’ claim (AUTH/2185/11/08)

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

Case numberAUTH/2185/11/08
ComplainantPharmacist practitioner
CompanySchering-Plough Ltd
ProductNeoClarityn (desloratadine)
MaterialJournal advertisement (ref NCL/08-579) in GP, 7 November
Main issueImplied clinically supported “anti-inflammatory” action inconsistent with SPC; misleading impression
Applicable Code year2008
Breach clausesClause 3.2; Clause 7.2
Complaint received17 November 2008
Case completed5 January 2009
AppealNo appeal
SanctionsUndertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated

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 pharmacist practitioner complained about a NeoClarityn (desloratadine) advertisement placed in GP (7 November) by Schering-Plough.
  • The ad headline was “Triple stopping power for allergic rhinitis” and showed three goalkeepers labelled “anti-histaminic”, “anti-allergic” and “anti-inflammatory”.
  • The complainant argued that while anti-inflammatory effects might be shown in vitro, claiming clinically relevant anti-inflammatory action was contradicted by the SPC (which said clinical relevance remained to be confirmed).
  • Schering-Plough argued the “anti-inflammatory” wording was supported by published literature and a mix of in vitro, in vivo and clinical data; it also withdrew the ad and said any future use would explain the evidence more clearly.
  • The Panel considered the overall impression of the ad was that NeoClarityn was authorised and clinically supported as an antihistamine, anti-allergic and anti-inflammatory.
⚖️

Outcome

  • The Panel ruled the advertisement was inconsistent with the NeoClarityn SPC regarding anti-inflammatory action.
  • The Panel ruled the advertisement was misleading.
  • Breaches were ruled for Clauses 3.2 and 7.2 (Code 2008).
  • No appeal.
🔒

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
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free