AUTH/2876/9/16: Health professional v AbbVie (Humira) – ‘Fast symptom relief’ claim in journal ad (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2876/9/16
Complainant	Health professional
Company	AbbVie Ltd
Product	Humira (adalimumab)
Material	Journal advertisement (ref AXHUG160440b(2))
Publication	Gastrointestinal Nursing, September 2016
Main claim challenged	“Fast symptom relief from week 1 (CD) and week 2 (UC)”
Issue alleged	“Fast” is a relative term implying an unfair/misleading comparison; other treatments may be as fast or faster
Authority focus	Clauses 7.2 and 7.10 (Code 2016)
Applicable Code year	2016
Panel decision	No breach
Clauses considered	Clause 7.2; Clause 7.10
Complaint received	21 September 2016
Case completed	10 January 2017
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 health professional complained about a two-page Humira (adalimumab) journal advertisement (ref AXHUG160440b(2)) published in Gastrointestinal Nursing, September 2016.
The ad included the claim: “Fast symptom relief from week 1 (CD) and week 2 (UC)”.
The complainant argued “fast” is a relative term and could imply other treatments are slower; they cited opiates and antispasmodics as providing symptom relief within hours.
The PMCPA asked AbbVie to respond in relation to Clauses 7.2 and 7.10 (Code 2016).
AbbVie said the claim was about Humira only (no comparison), was substantiated by cited studies, and was consistent with the marketing authorisation/and not inconsistent with the SPC.

⚖️

⌄

🔒

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