AUTH/2996/12/17: Pharmacist v Seqirus — Fluad promotional email and ‘new guidance’ 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); subject: “New guidance issued on adult flu vaccines”
Date sent	11 December 2017
Main allegations	Implied JCVI recommendation/policy change for all 65+; misleading cost-effectiveness and budget impact; most cost-effective only in over 75s
Applicable Code year	2016
Clauses considered	7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 9.1, 10.2
Panel decision	No breach
Complaint received	14 December 2017
Case completed	10 May 2018
Appeal	No appeal
Published	August 2018 Code of Practice Review

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) headed “New guidance issued on adult flu vaccines”.
The email (ref UK/FLUD/0917/0026c) was sent on 11 December 2017 and 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 over 65 years, 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 years.
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 the email clearly identified the draft JCVI source throughout.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel considered the email was not misleading, the comparative statements were not shown to be misleading, the cost-effectiveness statements were not misleading on the grounds alleged, and quotations were properly sourced and faithfully reproduced.

🔒

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