A Menarini: BMJ website Migard ad linked to out-of-date SPC and lacked required prescribing information (AUTH/3047/6/18)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3047/6/18
Complainant	Anonymous contactable health professional
Company	A Menarini
Product	Migard (frovatriptan)
Channel	BMJ website (digital advertisement)
Main issue	Prescribing information not provided; SPC link used and was out of date; missing legal classification and cost when using SPC approach
Applicable Code year	2016
Complaint received	08 June 2018
Case completed	03 September 2018
Appeal	No appeal
Breach clauses	4.1, 4.4, 9.1
No breach clauses	2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated

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

📋

⌄

An anonymous contactable UK health professional complained about a Migard (frovatriptan) advertisement on the BMJ website.
The ad did not include prescribing information; instead it provided a single-click link to an SPC.
The linked SPC appeared to be out of date (dated November 2014) versus the current Migard SPC (dated April 2017).
A Menarini said the material was generated, approved and placed on the BMJ website by global colleagues (around January 2016) without UK knowledge, review or approval.
The Panel applied the principle that UK companies are responsible for acts/omissions of overseas affiliates when within the scope of the Code, and found the BMJ content was clearly an advertisement for Migard.

⚖️

⌄

🔒

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