AUTH/2701/2/14: Anonymous GP v GlaxoSmithKline (Relvar Ellipta journal advertisements) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2701/2/14
Complainant	Anonymous, contactable general practitioner
Company	GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd
Product	Relvar Ellipta (fluticasone furoate and vilanterol inhalation powder)
Material	Journal advertisements (asthma and COPD versions)
Publications	Prescriber (5 February) and BMJ (8 February)
Ad references	UK/FFT/0096l/13 (COPD) and UK/FFT/0056/13 (asthma)
Claims challenged	“Delivered in a straightforward device”; “That offers value to the NHS”
Clauses considered	7.2, 7.4 and 9.1
Applicable Code year	2014
Complaint received	11 February 2014
Case completed	25 April 2014
Outcome	No breach
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, contactable general practitioner complained about two bullet-point claims in two journal advertisements for Relvar Ellipta (fluticasone furoate/vilanterol) placed by GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd.
The ads appeared in Prescriber (5 February) and the BMJ (8 February) and related to Relvar use in asthma and COPD (refs UK/FFT/0056/13 and UK/FFT/0096l/13).
The GP challenged the claims: “Delivered in a straightforward device” (arguing it seemed no different to Symbicort Turbohaler) and “That offers value to the NHS” (arguing the ad did not explain why/how it offered value).
PMCPA asked GSK to respond under Clauses 7.2, 7.4 and 9.1.

⚖️

⌄

🔒

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