GSK misleadingly implied NICE endorsement for Anoro Ellipta and blurred licensed indication context (AUTH/3175/3/19)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3175/3/19
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable individual (described as a health professional)
Company	GlaxoSmithKline UK Limited
Medicine	Anoro Ellipta (umeclidinium/vilanterol)
Material	Two-page advertisement (ref UK/UCV/0028/18) in February 2019 edition of Guidelines in Practice
Key issue	Prominent “NICE 2018” circle and layout implied NICE specifically recommended Anoro; page two implied an exacerbation-reduction indication without firm licensed-indication context
Applicable Code year	2016
Complaint received	22 March 2019
Case completed	18 October 2019
Breach clauses	Clause 3.2; Clause 7.2; Clause 9.1
No breach clauses	Clause 2
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous health professional complained about a two-page Anoro Ellipta advertisement (ref UK/UCV/0028/18) in the February 2019 edition of Guidelines in Practice.
Each page featured a prominent blue circle stating “NICE 2018” and a prominent depiction of the Anoro Ellipta device.
The complainant alleged the “NICE 2018” circle placed close to the product/device imagery implied NICE had recommended Anoro Ellipta specifically.
The complainant also alleged page two’s wording about “reducing the risk of moderate to severe exacerbations” implied an indication Anoro did not have (licensed for maintenance bronchodilator treatment to relieve symptoms in adults with COPD).
The Panel assessed each page separately because the pages were not facing; each page had to be non-misleading when read in isolation.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 7.2 (misleading) in relation to page one: the prominence of “NICE 2018” plus the Anoro device image could give an immediate impression that NICE specifically recommended Anoro, which was not the case.
Breach of Clause 7.2 (misleading) in relation to page two: layout, colour-coding, “NICE 2018” badge, and “Start with Anoro Ellipta” could lead readers to assume Anoro was NICE’s LAMA/LABA of choice, which was not so.
Breach of Clause 3.2: page two’s exacerbation-risk reduction message was not set firmly in the context of the licensed indication (maintenance therapy to relieve symptoms), implying Anoro was licensed to reduce exacerbations.
Breach of Clause 9.1: high standards were not maintained.
No breach of Clause 2: the Panel did not consider the matter brought discredit upon or reduced confidence in the industry.
No appeal (as per case listing).

🔒

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