Takeda v Merck Sharp & Dohme: Cozaar ad criticised for misleading meta-analysis presentation and selective Cochrane quoting

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2212/3/09
Parties	Takeda v Merck Sharp & Dohme
Product	Cozaar (losartan)
Material	Journal advertisement in The Pharmaceutical Journal (8 November) (ref 10-09 CZR.08.GB.10728.J)
Main claims at issue	“Losartan is as effective as other leading AIIAs and gives 24-hour blood pressure control”; and “A new independent Cochrane review suggests that ‘there were no clinically meaningful BP lowering differences between available [AIIAs]’”
Key evidence cited	Conlin et al (2000) meta-analysis; Baguet et al (2007); Cochrane review (2008)
Core issue	Misleading presentation of indirect evidence (meta-analysis) and selective/over-unequivocal quoting; insufficient context on doses and evidence limitations
Applicable Code year	2008
Breach clauses	7.2 (x2), 7.3 (x2)
Complaint received	06 March 2009
Case completed	12 June 2009
Appeal	Appeal by respondent; unsuccessful
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional 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

🎬 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

📋

⌄

Takeda complained about a Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) advertisement for Cozaar (losartan) in The Pharmaceutical Journal (8 November) (ref 10-09 CZR.08.GB.10728.J).
The ad compared antihypertensive efficacy across angiotensin II antagonists (AIIAs) and stated: “Losartan is as effective as other leading AIIAs and gives 24-hour blood pressure control”.
A table (adapted from Conlin et al (2000)) presented weighted average reductions in diastolic BP from 43 RCTs, listing dose ranges for losartan (50–100mg), candesartan (8–16mg), valsartan (80–160mg) and irbesartan (150–500mg).
The ad also stated: “A new independent Cochrane review suggests that ‘there were no clinically meaningful BP lowering differences between available [AIIAs]’” (with the quoted text presented more unequivocally than the authors’ wording).
Takeda alleged the dose ranges were not like-for-like and that the Cochrane quotation was taken out of context and did not reflect the full evidence base (including head-to-head data).

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clauses 7.2 and 7.3 (both ruled twice).
No breach on the narrow point that Conlin et al was “out-of-date” (Panel did not accept that subsequent publications rendered it out-of-date in itself).
No breach on the allegation that “Losartan is as effective as other leading AIIAs …” was “all embracing” (Panel considered it clearly referred to BP lowering in context).
MSD appealed; the appeal was unsuccessful and the Appeal Board upheld the breaches.

🔒

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