AUTH/2926/1/17: Stirling Anglian – ‘New’ claim on HCP website (theiCal-D3 breach; Stirlescent no breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2926/1/17
Complainant	Pharmaceutical physician (oncology consultancy)
Company	Stirling Anglian Pharmaceuticals Limited
Material	Health professional website
Products	Stirlescent (naproxen effervescent tablets); theiCal-D3 (1000mg/880IU chewable tablet)
Main issue	Use of the word “new” beyond permitted period; allegation of lack of certification evidence
Complaint received	2 January 2017
Case completed	23 February 2017
Applicable Code year	2016
Breach findings	Clause 7.11 (theiCal-D3)
No breach findings	Clause 7.11 (Stirlescent); Clause 14.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
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 pharmaceutical physician complained that Stirling Anglian’s health professional website described Stirlescent (naproxen effervescent tablets) and theiCal-D3 (1000mg/880IU chewable tablet) as “new” despite both being on the market for over 12 months.
The complainant also alleged there was no evidence the website content had been certified for promotional use.
Stirling Anglian accepted “new” was inappropriately used for theiCal-D3 (seen on 2 January 2017) and removed the wording on receipt of the complaint.
For Stirlescent, the company argued it was licensed 3 December 2015 but not generally available until 25 May 2016; it had been promoted to HCPs from 10 March 2016. “New” was removed from the relevant page on 6 January 2017.
Stirling Anglian said the website had been certified, but due to staff changes it could not locate the certificate (signatories had left).

⚖️

⌄

Breach: theiCal-D3 described as “new” more than 12 months after launch (launched 2 October 2014) – breach of Clause 7.11.
No breach: Stirlescent could still be described as “new” at the time of complaint because it had been promoted from 10 March 2016, so “new” permissible until 9 March 2017 – no breach of Clause 7.11.
No breach: allegation that the website was not certified was not proven on the balance of probabilities – no breach of Clause 14.1 (though the Panel described the inability to find certificates as “highly unsatisfactory”).

🔒

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