AUTH/2942/2/17: Online Spiolto banner ad (Pulse Today) – no breach (Boehringer Ingelheim) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2942/2/17
Parties	Health professional consultant to a pharmaceutical company v Boehringer Ingelheim Limited
Material	Online rolling banner advertisement for Spiolto (ref UK/SPRES-161076) on Pulse Today
Medicine / therapy area	Spiolto (tiotropium and olodaterol) for COPD maintenance bronchodilator treatment
Main allegations	Missing generic name for Spiriva; PI allegedly out of date; references not available; unclear Spiriva formulation/device; “better outcomes” vague/unsubstantiated
Panel findings	No breach; INN adjacency satisfied; PI signposting adequate; comparisons not misleading and substantiated; high standards maintained
Clause(s) considered	4.1, 4.3, 7.2, 7.4, 9.1
Applicable Code year	2016
Complaint received	1 March 2017
Case completed	15 May 2017
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	None

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 (consultant to a pharmaceutical company) complained in a private capacity about an online rolling banner advertisement for Spiolto (tiotropium and olodaterol) on Pulse Today.
The complainant alleged: (1) Spiriva’s generic name was not given, (2) prescribing information (PI) was out of date and references were not available via the link, (3) it was unclear whether the comparison was to Spiriva Respimat or Handihaler, and (4) the claim “better outcomes” was vague and unsubstantiated without references.
The ad consisted of five images that auto-rotated (first four shown ~4 seconds each) and ended on a fifth static image. Claims included “Superior lung function and less breathlessness vs Spiriva”, “Superior quality of life vs Spiriva”, and “better outcomes early on compared to Spiriva”.
Boehringer Ingelheim stated the first image included “Spiriva (tiotropium)”, and that PI and references were available via the link; it also disclosed a technical error (14 Feb–2 Mar 2017) where the link routed to a PI version without references.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
No breach of Clause 4.3 (generic name adjacent to brand name) – “tiotropium” appeared immediately adjacent to the first mention of Spiriva.
No breach of Clause 7.2 (misleading) – the comparison and “better outcomes” claim were not considered misleading in context.
No breach of Clause 7.4 (substantiation) – comparisons were substantiated by material provided, including the Spiolto SPC.
No breach of Clause 4.1 – the ad included clear, prominent signposting to prescribing information; references were not required under Clauses 4.1/4.2 and Clause 7.6 was not raised so could not be ruled upon.
No breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards).

🔒

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