Stiefel: GP journal acne insert ruled to bring discredit on industry (Clause 2) (AUTH/2255/8/09)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2255/8/09
Parties	General Practitioner and Pharmacist v Stiefel
Material	Sponsored journal insert in GP journal on management of mild and moderate acne vulgaris
Product mentioned	Duac Once Daily Gel (clindamycin 1% and benzoyl peroxide 5%)
Indication stated	Treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris, particularly inflammatory lesions
Complaint received	04 August 2009
Case completed	18 September 2009
Applicable Code year	2008
Breach clauses	Clause 2
Outcome summary	Presentation reduced confidence in and brought discredit upon the pharmaceutical industry
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Advertisement
Appeal	No appeal
Related case	AUTH/2244/6/09 (earlier complaint about the same insert; Clause 2 issue arose due to a procedural error and was amended)

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 general practitioner and a pharmacist complained about an insert on managing mild to moderate acne vulgaris published in GP journal.
The insert was described as being “Provided as a service to medicine by Stiefel Laboratories”.
Stiefel marketed Duac Once Daily Gel (clindamycin 1% and benzoyl peroxide 5%), indicated for mild to moderate acne vulgaris, particularly inflammatory lesions.
The complainants had previously alleged the insert was disguised promotion for Duac in an earlier case (AUTH/2244/6/09).
In the earlier case, Clause 2 was not put to Stiefel for consideration; due to a procedural error the Panel initially ruled a Clause 2 breach, then the Authority declared that ruling null and void and amended the decision.
The complainants then requested a new complaint specifically alleging a breach of Clause 2 in relation to the same insert.
Stiefel said it had accepted the earlier ruling (breaches of Clauses 9.10 and 12.1 in AUTH/2244/6/09) and stated the logo/wording did not describe the full extent of its involvement; it withdrew the materials and reviewed processes and training.

⚖️

⌄

Breach ruled: the Panel considered the presentation of the insert was such as to reduce confidence in, and bring discredit upon, the pharmaceutical industry.
No appeal.

🔒

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