AUTH/2996/12/17: Pharmacist v Seqirus — Fluad promotional email and “new guidance/policy change” wording (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2996/12/17
Complainant	CCG lead prescribing support pharmacist
Company	Seqirus UK Limited
Product	Fluad (influenza vaccine, adjuvanted)
Material	Promotional email (ref UK/FLUD/0917/0026c)
Date sent	11 December 2017
Core allegation	Email misleadingly implied JCVI changed recommendations so Fluad should be used for everyone over 65; misleading cost-effectiveness/budget impact; most cost-effective in over 75s
Authority clauses considered	7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 9.1, 10.2
Outcome	No breach
Complaint received	14 December 2017
Case completed	10 May 2018
Applicable Code year	2016
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 CCG lead prescribing support pharmacist complained about a Seqirus UK promotional email for Fluad (influenza vaccine, adjuvanted) (ref UK/FLUD/0917/0026c), sent 11 December 2017, subject line “New guidance issued on adult flu vaccines”.
The email included a prominent box: “Important: Influenza vaccine policy change affecting your order for 2018/19”.
The complainant alleged the email implied JCVI had changed recommendations so Fluad should be used for everyone aged over 65, and that readers might assume a national policy change unless they “delved deeper”.
The complainant also alleged the email was misleading on cost-effectiveness and budget impact, and that evidence suggested Fluad was most cost-effective in those aged over 75.
Seqirus said the email was based on the draft JCVI October 2017 meeting minutes and the NHS Green Book (updated 1 December 2017), and that quotations were clearly sourced and faithfully reproduced.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel considered the email made clear throughout that quotations were from a draft JCVI minute, and that describing the subject as a “policy change” was not unreasonable given the Green Book reflected the draft minute.
The Panel did not consider the complainant had established the email was misleading regarding comparative effectiveness/cost-effectiveness or budget implications as alleged.

🔒

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