Journalist v Novartis: Daily Mail article alleged to promote Xolair via third-party quotes and pack shot (AUTH/2578/2/13)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2578/2/13
Parties	Journalist v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd
Medicine	Xolair (omalizumab)
Issue	Alleged public promotion via a Daily Mail Online article; concern about third-party connections and pack shot
Company material assessed	Novartis press release (9 November 2012) about NICE draft decision on omalizumab (Xolair)
Article date	11 February 2013
Complaint received	14 February 2013
Case completed	26 March 2013
Applicable Code year	2012
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 22.1, 22.2
Ruling	No breach of the Code
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 journalist complained that a Daily Mail Online article (“Don’t scrap asthma jab that saved my son’s life”, published 11 February 2013) was thinly veiled promotion of Xolair (omalizumab), a prescription-only medicine marketed by Novartis.
The complainant highlighted that the article quoted individuals with connections to Novartis (a respiratory consultant who had attended Novartis advisory boards; Asthma UK, which had received Novartis funding) and included a pack shot of Xolair.
The complainant assumed Novartis had influenced the story and that the article was one-sided, implying NICE should not reject NHS use and portraying Xolair as better than other medicines.
PMCPA assessed the company material that might have prompted the article—Novartis’ press release dated 9 November 2012 about a NICE draft decision to revoke positive guidance for Xolair in patients aged 12+.
Novartis denied involvement in generating the article and stated neither it nor its PR agency engaged with the author or knew about the case study used.
Novartis stated the pack shot in the article was not a UK pack and was not provided by Novartis UK or Novartis Switzerland.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code (Applicable Code year: 2012).
The Panel ruled the Novartis press release did not promote Xolair to the public and did not appear to have influenced the Daily Mail article.
The Panel found the article’s strong claims (eg “unbelievable”, “didn’t cause terrible side-effects like other treatments”) were not attributable to the tone/content of the press release.

🔒

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