Novo Nordisk v Sanofi: Lyxumia ad ruled misleading for “only once-daily” positioning and cost-minimisation claims (AUTH/2604/5/13)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2604/5/13
Parties	Novo Nordisk v Sanofi
Product	Lyxumia (lixisenatide)
Channel	Advertisement in Health Service Journal (March 2013)
Key challenged claims	“Lyxumia is the only once-daily GLP-1 receptor agonist licensed…”; “Lyxumia leads to even greater cost savings of:” and “Turn to the GLP-1 that minimises costs”
Panel findings	Claims misleading/ambiguous; cost claims and comparisons misleading as basis (acquisition cost vs cost-effectiveness) not clear
Breach clauses	Clause 7.2 (x2) and 7.3
Applicable Code year	2012
Complaint received	13 May 2013
Case completed	26 June 2013
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated

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

📋

⌄

Novo Nordisk complained about a Sanofi advertisement for Lyxumia (lixisenatide) published in the Health Service Journal (March 2013) (ref GBIE.LYX.13.02.11).
The ad included the claim: “Lyxumia is the only once-daily GLP-1 receptor agonist licensed for type 2 diabetes mellitus patients not optimally controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs and/or basal insulin”, with “only once-daily” emboldened.
The ad also included cost-focused claims including: “Lyxumia leads to even greater cost savings of:” and “Turn to the GLP-1 that minimises costs”, alongside stated percentage savings vs Bydureon and Victoza doses.
During inter-company dialogue, Sanofi agreed the cost-saving comparison might invite conclusions beyond acquisition cost and said it instructed its agency not to use the ad; the ad was withdrawn from use on 29 April 2013.
The Panel also noted a Sanofi press release (embargoed until 00.01 on 1 May 2013) that used the phrase “cost-effective option…”, which the Panel considered implied savings beyond acquisition cost.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled the “only once-daily… and/or” claim was misleading and ambiguous.
The Panel ruled the “minimises costs” / “cost savings” claims and the associated comparisons were misleading because it was unclear they were limited to acquisition cost rather than cost-effectiveness or broader savings.
The advertisement had already been withdrawn by the time of the ruling.
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