Flynn Pharma: Circadin ad claim ‘Current guidance states…’ ruled misleading (Clause 7.2)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2704/3/14
Complainant	Medicines management pharmacist
Company	Flynn Pharma Ltd
Product	Circadin (melatonin)
Material	Journal advertisement in Prescriber (Vol 25 issue 1/2 January 2014); ref Circ/ADV/13/0483
Main claim at issue	“Current guidance states that, when a hypnotic is indicated in patients aged 55 and over, prolonged-release melatonin should be tried first”
Reference cited	Wilson et al (2010) (BAP consensus statement/guidelines)
Issue	“Current guidance” wording ambiguous; likely to be interpreted as NICE/AWMSG-type national guidance
Applicable Code	2014
Breach clauses	Clause 7.2
Sanction	Undertaking received
Complaint received	14 March 2014
Case completed	30 April 2014
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 medicines management pharmacist complained about a Flynn Pharma Ltd advertisement for Circadin (melatonin) in Prescriber (Vol 25 issue 1/2, January 2014; ref Circ/ADV/13/0483).
The ad stated: “Current guidance states that, when a hypnotic is indicated in patients aged 55 and over, prolonged-release melatonin should be tried first”.
The claim was referenced to Wilson et al (2010), which the complainant identified as the British Association for Psychopharmacology (BAP) consensus statement/guidelines.
The complainant alleged the phrase “current guidance” would be taken to mean NICE or AWMSG guidance and was therefore misleading.
Flynn argued the BAP guidance remained “current” (not revised/superseded) and cited other sources (BNF and MTRAC) as consistent context.
The Panel considered that “current guidance” did not clearly identify the nature/status of the source (a BAP consensus statement by 18 members) and that readers were likely to assume a nationally recognised body (eg NICE/AWMSG).

⚖️

⌄

Breach found: the claim was ambiguous and therefore misleading because it did not sufficiently clarify the source and status of the “guidance”.
The Panel ruled a breach of Clause 7.2.
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