AUTH/2382/1/11: General Practitioner v Novo Nordisk (Daily Mail articles on liraglutide/Victoza) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2382/1/11
Complainant	General practitioner
Company	Novo Nordisk
Product	Liraglutide (Victoza)
Media/channel	Daily Mail / Mail Online articles
Main allegation	Public/off-label promotion of a prescription-only medicine for weight loss; exaggerated claims and disparagement of orlistat; raising unfounded hopes
Applicable Code year	2008
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 22.1, 22.2
Panel decision	No breach of the Code
Complaint received	19 January 2011
Case completed	15 April 2011
Appeal	No appeal

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

🎬 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

📋

What happened

⌄

A general practitioner complained about Daily Mail (Mail Online) articles referring to liraglutide (Victoza), a prescription-only medicine indicated for adults with type 2 diabetes to achieve glycaemic control in combination with oral anti-hyperglycaemics.
The complainant alleged the Daily Mail online article quoted Novo Nordisk’s managing director promoting liraglutide for weight reduction (an unlicensed use at the time), exaggerating results, disparaging orlistat, and claiming liraglutide could “prevent and even cure diabetes”, with “life-changing” effects.
The complainant also referenced a second Daily Mail item where “experts and opinion leaders” allegedly advocated liraglutide for weight loss, and compared this to earlier Novo Nordisk cases (AUTH/2202/1/09 and AUTH/2234/5/09).
Novo Nordisk explained it had held a meeting (11 November 2010) with a Daily Mail journalist as part of a broader media programme to raise awareness of diabetes, using a certified slide deck focused on diabetes impact and future care needs.
The journalist asked about liraglutide’s mechanism and obesity trials; Novo Nordisk said it would provide published information later and steered the meeting back to diabetes. Two documents were later sent: an “Incretin Backgrounder” (23 November 2010) and a written statement with publicly available top-line phase 2 obesity trial results (2 December 2010), approved by two signatories via email due to timing.
Novo Nordisk said the managing director was misquoted in the article and sent a rebuttal to the journalist after monitoring picked up the piece (online/paper) on 27 December 2010.

⚖️

Outcome

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel did not consider that, on the evidence, Novo Nordisk’s presentation, discussion, or material provided to the journalist promoted a prescription-only medicine to the public.
The Panel also did not consider the material provided was not factual/balanced for the licensed indication, nor that it encouraged members of the public to seek a prescription.
The Panel noted concerns about the arrangements/presentation/discussion (including whether there was disproportionate emphasis on liraglutide), but still ruled no breach.

🔒

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

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access

AUTH/2382/1/11: General Practitioner v Novo Nordisk (Daily Mail articles on liraglutide/Victoza) – No breach

Key facts

What happened

Outcome

Clauses

Unlock the full case analysis

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown