AstraZeneca & Bristol-Myers Squibb: Onglyza advert in Health Service Journal (HSJ) – appeal overturned Clause 11.1 finding (No breach overall)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number(s)	AUTH/2426/8/11; AUTH/2427/8/11; AUTH/2428/8/11; AUTH/2429/8/11
Parties	Member(s) of the public v AstraZeneca UK Limited and Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Limited
Medicine	Onglyza (saxagliptin)
Material	Full-page advertorial advertisement in Health Service Journal (HSJ), 4 August 2011 (ref 422UK11PM170/CZ006148-ONGL)
Main issue	Whether HSJ placement and advert content were appropriate for the audience; whether it amounted to advertising to the public; whether material was tailored to readership
Applicable Code year	2011
Clauses considered	11.1; 22.1
Panel decision	No breach of 22.1; breach of 11.1 (not tailored to main HSJ audience)
Appeal outcome	Appeal successful; no breach of 11.1
Final outcome	No breach of the Code
Complaint received	8 August 2011 (AUTH/2426/8/11 & AUTH/2427/8/11); 9 August 2011 (AUTH/2428/8/11 & AUTH/2429/8/11)
Case completed	16 November 2011

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

📋

⌄

Two members of the public complained about a full-page advertorial advertisement for Onglyza (saxagliptin) in the Health Service Journal (HSJ), published 4 August 2011 (ref 422UK11PM170/CZ006148-ONGL).
Complainants alleged the placement was inappropriate because HSJ is read by NHS managers and also by members of the public, and that the advert was too technical and should have appeared only in medical/clinical publications.
The PMCPA asked the companies to consider Clauses 11.1 and 22.1 (Code year 2011).
AstraZeneca UK and Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) said HSJ was subscription-only, aimed at health professionals and appropriate administrative staff, and that the advert was payer-oriented (including acquisition cost comparisons) and certified specifically for HSJ.
The Panel initially found: no breach of Clause 22.1 (not public advertising), but a breach of Clause 11.1 (not sufficiently tailored to HSJ’s mainly management readership).
The companies appealed the Clause 11.1 breach; the Appeal Board upheld the appeal and ruled no breach.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code overall (appeal successful).
No breach of Clause 22.1 (Panel).
Initial Panel breach of Clause 11.1 was overturned on appeal (Appeal Board: no breach).

🔒

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