AUTH/3108/10/18: Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Europe website ruled to promote POMs to the public

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3108/10/18
Company	Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Europe
Material	Company website (products pages)
Products mentioned	Exembol (argatroban); Tanatril (imidapril)
Main issue	Promotion/advertising of prescription only medicines to the public via website pages; unclear audience separation and insufficient restriction
Complaint received	29 October 2018
Case completed	20 February 2019
Applicable Code year	2016
Breach clauses	9.1; 26.1; 28.1
No breach clauses	2
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
Source	https://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/completed-cases/auth31081018-complainant-v-mitsubishi-tanabe-pharma-europe

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

📋

⌄

A UK health professional complained that Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Europe’s website product pages did not clearly separate patient/public content from healthcare professional (HCP) content and could be accessed by the general public.
The products section included information about two UK prescription-only medicines: Exembol (argatroban) and Tanatril (imidapril), including names and indications.
The pages included a small-font notice: “Please note: certain pages are intended for healthcare professionals only”, but did not identify which pages those were.
Clicking “read more” for argatroban led to a page listing brand names by country (including Exembol in the UK) and then a UK HCP pop-up gate for the UK page.
Clicking “read more” for Tanatril led to a “How to order Tanatril” page with wholesaler ordering details (including PIP codes) and links to the SPC/PIL.
The Panel considered that the statement “argatroban was the first licensed synthetic direct thrombin inhibitor. Approved in twelve European countries …” constituted a product claim.
The Panel considered that members of the public looking for one medicine would also be exposed to the other medicine’s name/indication on the same products page.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 26.1 (promotion of prescription only medicines to the public).
Breach of Clause 28.1 (internet material requirements; lack of restriction/clear separation and identification of intended audience).
Breach of Clause 9.1 (failure to maintain high standards).
No breach of Clause 2 (particular censure not warranted in the circumstances).
No appeal.

🔒

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