Lilly v Novo Nordisk: The Times diabetes supplement and pre-licence promotion of liraglutide (AUTH/2202/1/09)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2202/1/09
Parties	Eli Lilly and Company Limited v Novo Nordisk Limited
Complaint received	23 January 2009
Case completed	10 March 2009
Applicable Code year	2008
Material	16-page diabetes supplement “Changing the Future of Diabetes” distributed with The Times (14 November 2008)
Item at issue	Article “Gut protein drug expected to help improve control” (interview with Novo Nordisk chief science officer)
Product	Liraglutide (pre-approval at the time)
Key Panel finding	Novo Nordisk funded the supplement and had full editorial control/copyright; content encouraged patients to see liraglutide as an improvement and ask HCPs for it
Breach clauses	Clause 2, Clause 3.1, Clause 9.1, Clause 22.1, Clause 22.2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Advertisement
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

📋

⌄

Eli Lilly complained about an article (“Gut protein drug expected to help improve control”) in a 16-page diabetes supplement (“Changing the Future of Diabetes”) distributed with The Times on 14 November 2008.
The supplement was timed to coincide with World Diabetes Day and was fully funded by Novo Nordisk.
The article was based on an interview with Novo Nordisk’s chief science officer and described liraglutide clinical trial outcomes (eg “better blood glucose control” and that it “has also helped people reduce weight”), plus referenced a “single daily injection”.
Liraglutide was not yet approved in Europe or the US; the article said it was lodged with authorities and might be available from mid-2009 if approved.
Novo Nordisk argued the supplement was disease awareness/education and that the article was a factual outline of research findings, clearly stating the product was not yet approved.
The Panel found Novo Nordisk had full editorial control, owned the copyright, and was part of the editorial team—so it was responsible for the supplement’s content under the Code (not an arm’s length sponsorship).

⚖️

⌄

The complaint was upheld: the Panel ruled the article amounted to promotion of liraglutide to the public prior to marketing authorisation.
The Panel rejected that a consumer newspaper supplement was an acceptable forum to publish clinical trial results in this way.
The Panel considered patients could be encouraged to ask their health professional to prescribe liraglutide, and found it irrelevant that the product was not yet available to prescribe.

🔒

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