AUTH/3033/4/18: Boehringer Ingelheim & Lilly v Novo Nordisk (Victoza exhibition panel) – No breach

📅 2018 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

Case numberAUTH/3033/4/18
ComplainantBoehringer Ingelheim Limited and Eli Lilly and Company Limited (the Alliance)
RespondentNovo Nordisk
ProductVictoza (liraglutide)
MaterialExhibition panel/stand (ref UK/VT/0318/0108)
EventDiabetes UK Professional Congress (14–16 March 2018)
Main issueWhether prominent CV risk reduction/superiority messaging and imagery made promotion inconsistent with the SPC and misleading; plus conduct during inter-company dialogue
Clauses cited3.2, 7.2, 7.8, 9.1
DecisionNo breach of the Code
Complaint received24 April 2018 (HTML); PDF text also references 23 April 2018
Case completed28 August 2018
AppealNo appeal
Applicable Code year2016

Download the full case report (PDF)


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
📋

What happened

  • Boehringer Ingelheim Limited and Eli Lilly and Company Limited (the Alliance) complained about Novo Nordisk’s promotion of Victoza (liraglutide).
  • Material: an exhibition panel (ref UK/VT/0318/0108) used at the Diabetes UK Professional Congress (14–16 March 2018).
  • The stand prominently featured claims including: “In adults with insufficiently controlled type 2 diabetes change the course of treatment by reducing CV risk”, “HbA1CV”, and “Victoza: the only GLP-1 RA superior in preventing CV events vs placebo”.
  • The Alliance alleged the overall balance and imagery over-emphasised cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction, implying a CV-risk indication not in Section 4.1, and therefore promoted Victoza inconsistently with the SPC.
  • The Alliance also alleged Novo Nordisk’s approach during inter-company dialogue (including a previously withdrawn leavepiece) failed to maintain high standards.
⚖️

Outcome

  • No breach of Clause 3.2.
  • No breach of Clause 7.2.
  • No breach of Clause 7.8.
  • No breach of Clause 9.1.
  • No breach of the Code overall.
  • No appeal.
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value
£249/year
Annual — save £99
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access

⭐ Business Intelligence Access

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export.

Request Access →
⭐ Flagship Programme

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

12 modules. 12 weeks. Final Signatory readiness. The industry standard for ABPI Code signatories — £995 + VAT.

Enrol — AQP Path Learn more

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free
🎓 AQP Training