AstraZeneca: Crestor journal ad “Finding cholesterol targets harder to hit?” (AUTH/2186/11/08) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2186/11/08
Complainant	Pharmacist practitioner
Company	AstraZeneca UK Limited
Product	Crestor (rosuvastatin)
Material	Journal advertisement in GP (7 November)
Main issue	Alleged misleading implication that cholesterol targets had recently been reduced; alleged omission of NICE first-line recommendations
Applicable Code year	2008
Clause(s) considered	Clause 7.2
Outcome	No breach
Complaint received	17 November 2008
Case completed	6 January 2009
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 pharmacist practitioner complained about a Crestor (rosuvastatin) advertisement placed by AstraZeneca in GP, 7 November.
The ad showed a very small dartboard and the strapline: “Finding cholesterol targets harder to hit?”.
The complainant said NICE lipid modification guidance (CG67, May 2008) set no target for primary prevention and recommended simvastatin 40mg for secondary prevention; audit targets remained 5mmol/L total cholesterol and 3mmol/L LDL cholesterol, with aspirational levels of 4mmol/L and 2mmol/L.
Allegations: (1) the ad implied targets had recently been reduced (misleading), and (2) it failed to mention NICE first-line recommendations.
The Authority asked AstraZeneca to respond in relation to Clause 7.2.
AstraZeneca argued multiple NICE guidelines since May 2008 (including CG66 diabetes and CG71 familial hypercholesterolaemia) and other national/local guidance supported lower goals in some groups and “high intensity statins” in some patients; the ad was framed as a question, not a claim.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel did not consider the strapline misleading under Clause 7.2.
The Panel did not consider omission of NICE first-line recommendations misleading, noting the ad did not mention NICE at all.

🔒

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