Celgene breached ABPI Code over Otezla BMJ “tile” ad missing PI link and separate certification (AUTH/3253/10/19)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3253/10/19
Complainant	Anonymous (concerned UK health professional)
Company	Celgene Limited
Product	Otezla (apremilast)
Channel	bmj.com hosted-content page (information “tile” linking to promotional microsite)
Issue	Tile lacked clear/prominent single-click PI access; tile appeared not to be separately certified
Clauses breached	Clause 4.1; Clause 14.1
Unique identifier point	No ruling (no clause raised; unique identifiers referenced as good practice in guidance)
Complaint received	07 October 2019
Case completed	14 February 2020
Appeal	No appeal
Applicable Code year	2019
Sanction	Undertaking received

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 UK health professional complained about an Otezla (apremilast) advertisement placed on bmj.com by Celgene Limited.
The ad appeared as an “information tile” on a BMJ hosted-content page for companies/advertisers.
The tile showed the Otezla brand name/logo and the claim: “Don’t let psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis hold your patients back. Help your patients move forward with Otezla”.
Clicking the tile led to a promotional Otezla microsite; the microsite stated that prescribing information (PI) and adverse event reporting information could be found at the bottom of the webpage.
The complainant alleged the tile had no unique identifier and no link to PI, suggesting it had not been certified.
Celgene accepted the tile should have carried a statement indicating where PI could be found and accepted a breach of Clause 4.1.
Celgene argued the tile was reviewed and certified as part of the microsite website (i.e., within the same job bag).

⚖️

⌄

The Panel ruled the tile was promotional and should itself provide a clear and prominent direct single-click route to prescribing information.
Breach of Clause 4.1 was ruled (failure to provide prescribing information on the tile).
The Panel ruled the tile had not been certified: the certificate covered the website, while the tile was only an attachment/background document in the job bag and not subject to the certificate.
Breach of Clause 14.1 was ruled (certification).
No ruling was made on the absence of a unique identifier because no clause had been raised in relation to that point (unique identifiers were described as good practice in guidance, not a Code requirement).
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