GSK Seretide pricing and NHS “value” email: complaint not upheld (AUTH/2478/2/11)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2478/2/11
Complainant	Pharmacist/Clinical senior lecturer
Company	GlaxoSmithKline UK Limited
Product	Seretide (salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate)
Material	Promotional email sent via eGuidelines.co.uk
Main challenged claims	“Seretide is priced competitively compared to other ICS/LABA combinations at equivalent doses”; “Prescribed appropriately, Seretide can help achieve NHS quality and productivity targets”; plus price reduction statement (42% to £18)
Audience	GPs, pharmacists, medicines management professionals and healthcare managers
Clauses considered	7.2 and 7.4
Decision	No breach of the Code
Complaint received	7 February 2012
Case completed	18 April 2012
Applicable Code year	2011
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

🎬 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 pharmacist/clinical senior lecturer complained about a promotional email for Seretide (salmeterol/fluticasone) sent by GlaxoSmithKline UK Limited via eGuidelines.co.uk.
The email headline stated Seretide “now delivers even greater value to the NHS” and said: “The price of Seretide Accuhaler 100 has been reduced by 42% to £18 and is now the same price as the Seretide Evohaler 50”.
The email included the claim: “Seretide is priced competitively compared to other ICS/LABA combinations at equivalent doses” (referenced to MIMS, January 2012).
The email also claimed: “Prescribed appropriately, Seretide can help achieve NHS quality and productivity targets” (referenced to Doull et al (2007) and Briggs et al (2010)).
The complainant alleged the “competitively priced” claim was incorrect/misleading across the dose range and that the email lacked transparency on the cost calculations; they also alleged the QIPP/quality-productivity claim could not be substantiated.
The Authority asked GSK to respond in relation to Clauses 7.2 and 7.4.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was found.
The Panel ruled no breach of Clause 7.2 (misleading claims) for both challenged statements.
The Panel ruled no breach of Clause 7.4 (substantiation) for both challenged statements.

🔒

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