AUTH/2918/12/16: Ex-employee v GlaxoSmithKline (Relvar Ellipta cost calculator) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2918/12/16
Complainant	Ex-employee
Company	GlaxoSmithKline UK Limited
Product	Relvar Ellipta (fluticasone furoate/vilanterol)
Material	Online cost calculator (ref UK/FFT/0232/15(1); date of preparation April 2016)
Main issue	Search engines surfaced internal-hosted calculator page that appeared to lack obligatory information and HCP gating
Alleged clauses	Clause 4.1, 4.3, 4.9, 4.10, 9.1, 26.1
Panel decision	No breach of Clauses 4.1, 4.3, 4.9, 4.10, 9.1 and 26.1
Complaint received	19 December 2016
Case completed	3 February 2017
Appeal	No appeal
Applicable Code year	2016

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 former GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) employee complained about an online cost calculator for Relvar Ellipta (fluticasone furoate/vilanterol), ref UK/FFT/0232/15(1), prepared April 2016.
The complainant found a page via searching “GSK cost calculator” on two search engines; the page promoted Relvar Ellipta 92/22mcg and claimed it was the cheapest ICS/LABA for COPD patients.
The complainant alleged the page lacked prescribing information, the non-proprietary name next to the brand name, an adverse event reporting statement, and a black triangle (additional monitoring), and that it promoted a POM to the public and failed to maintain high standards.
GSK explained the calculator was intended for the UK health professional website (hcp.gsk.co.uk) where mandatory information and an HCP confirmation pop-up were present; the calculator itself was interactive content hosted on an internal hosting server and pulled into the HCP page via an I-frame.
GSK stated search engines unexpectedly crawled and surfaced content on its internal hosting server (first identified Aug 2016, fixed; reoccurred by the time of the complaint due to evolving search engine technology).
After the complaint, GSK again resolved the issue by blocking internal-hosted content from search results (webmaster tools), adding code to prevent crawling of new content, and adding a new ongoing QC check to monitor search results.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel accepted that, in the circumstances, the material accessed via search results was best regarded as content on an internal company hosting server rather than material intended for UK health professionals.
The Panel considered GSK had taken reasonable steps to prevent its internal hosting server being accessed by search engines and noted the company had implemented a monitoring plan.
The Panel considered that when accessed as intended via the HCP site, health professionals would be supplied with the requisite obligatory information (including PI, non-proprietary name, AE statement and black triangle).

🔒

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