GSK breach over Zejula pipeline tweet on public Twitter feed (AUTH/3230/7/19)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3230/7/19
Company	GlaxoSmithKline
Material	Tweet on @GSK (global corporate Twitter channel) in Q2 2019 results thread
Medicine	Zejula (niraparib tosylate monohydrate)
Main issue	Publicly accessible tweet referenced Zejula trial/regulatory updates; Panel found this advertised a POM to the public
Complainant	‘Concerned UK health professional’
Complaint received	26 July 2019
Case completed	12 December 2019
Applicable Code year	2019
Breach clauses	26.1
No breach clauses	4.1, 4.3
Appeal	No appeal
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

📋

⌄

A ‘concerned UK health professional’ complained about a tweet on GlaxoSmithKline’s global corporate Twitter channel (@GSK) that appeared in their feed.
The tweet was part of a linked Q2 2019 results thread and included “Pipeline highlights – Oncology”.
It referenced Zejula (niraparib tosylate monohydrate) and stated: (1) “Positive headline results from PRIMA trial for Zejula as 1L maintenance therapy for ovarian cancer regardless of biomarker status” (unlicensed indication; unpublished results), and (2) “sNDA accepted by FDA… following QUADRA trial”.
The complainant alleged this promoted a prescription-only medicine (POM) to the general public on Twitter and lacked compulsory promotional information (eg generic name, prescribing information).
GSK argued the tweet was non-promotional financial/investor information, signposted by a link to a press release and the “$GSK” cashtag, and was not targeted beyond followers.

⚖️

⌄

Breach: Clause 26.1.
No breach: Clauses 4.1 and 4.3 (Panel considered these health-professional promotion requirements not relevant because Twitter was a means of providing information to the public and the tweet was not intended as HCP advertising).

🔒

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