Teva DuoResp Spiromax BMJ-hosted digital ad ruled misleading and out of date

📅 2019 | 🖉 Anzal Qurbain
πŸ“Š

Key facts

Case numberAUTH/3226/7/19
Case referenceDuoResp Spiromax advertisement on BMJ hosted website
ComplainantConcerned UK health professional
Respondent/companyTeva UK Limited
Product(s)DuoResp Spiromax (budesonide/formoterol fumarate); comparator referenced: Symbicort Turbohaler (budesonide/formoterol)
Material/channelDigital advertisement on BMJ hosted website (https://hosted.bmj.com); ad ref UK/DUO/15/0053a(1)
Key issueMisleading β€œstandalone” claims relying on footnotes; implied broader licensed populations (age, MART strength, COPD criteria) and misleading comparison; out-of-date prescribing information remained live beyond intended period
Dates (received/completed if stated)Complaint received 16 July 2019; Case completed 7 April 2020
AppealYes; Teva appealed; Appeal Board upheld Panel rulings; appeal unsuccessful
Code yearNot stated
Breaches/clausesClauses 7.2, 3.2, 9.1, 2
SanctionsNo explicit additional sanctions stated beyond the required undertaking/corrective actions described in the report

Download the full case report (PDF)


Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) β€” ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors β€” instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI
🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough
🎬
Video walkthrough β€” coming for members
Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.
Subscribe β€” from Β£299/yr
πŸ“‹

What happened

  • A concerned UK health professional complained about a DuoResp Spiromax (budesonide/formoterol fumarate) digital advertisement placed on a BMJ-hosted website by Teva UK Limited.
  • The ad promoted two strengths (160/4.5mcg and 320/9mcg) and used prominent bullet-point claims with small-font footnotes.
  • The complainant’s initial impression was that the product was licensed for all asthma and COPD patients; footnotes indicated use was limited to adults aged 18+ and that only one strength had a MART licence in asthma.
  • The complainant alleged promotion beyond the licence and said the prescribing information appeared over two years out of date.
  • The Panel and Appeal Board considered that key claims could not β€œstand alone” and were misleading when read without the footnotes/prescribing information.
  • Teva submitted the ad was intended for a limited period but remained published on the BMJ website for longer than intended due to human error by a third-party agency/publisher; Teva accepted responsibility for third parties under the Code.
βš–οΈ

Outcome

  • Breaches were ruled in relation to misleading claims about licensed use in asthma/COPD, MART licensing, and comparison to Symbicort Turbohaler, as well as failure to maintain high standards and bringing discredit on the industry.
  • On appeal, the Appeal Board upheld the Panel’s rulings: breaches of Clauses 7.2, 3.2, 9.1 and 2 were upheld; Teva’s appeal was unsuccessful.
  • The Appeal Board considered the out-of-date prescribing information could create a patient safety issue, including because a later update added β€œpost bronchodilator” to the COPD criterion, potentially narrowing the indicated population.
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

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

Best value
Β£249/year
Annual β€” save Β£99
or
Β£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 β€” free.

Subscribe Free
🎓 AQP Training