Napp: BMJ hosted “introductory panel” for Invokana ruled promotional and missing prescribing information (AUTH/3254/10/19)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3254/10/19
Company	Napp Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Product	Invokana (canagliflozin)
Channel	BMJ hosted page on bmj.com (introductory panel linking to BMJ-hosted microsite)
Main issue	Panel (including hover pop-up) deemed promotional but lacked a clear and prominent statement of where prescribing information could be found via a clear and prominent direct single click
Complainant	Concerned UK health professional
Complaint received	7 October 2019
Case completed	12 February 2020
Applicable Code year	2019
Breach clauses	4.1
No breach clauses	14.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received
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

📋

⌄

A UK health professional complained that Invokana content on a BMJ hosted page appeared promotional and lacked prescribing information and a unique identifier.
The material was an introductory panel on bmj.com (one of 15 panels) that linked through to a BMJ-hosted Invokana microsite.
The panel displayed the Invokana brand name/logo and the strapline “The renal reason to intensify”, plus “Diabetes”.
When users hovered over the panel, a pop-up appeared (“Visit microsite”) with text inviting readers to find out how Invokana could help reduce the risk of major adverse renal events in certain diabetics.
Napp argued the panel was merely a link (not standalone promotion) and that prescribing information and certification details were present on the microsite reached after clicking.
The Panel disagreed: a link tile can itself be promotional depending on its content, and the hover pop-up was considered an integral part of the panel.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 4.1 (failure to include prescribing information in relation to the panel / failure to include a clear and prominent statement of where prescribing information could be found via a clear and prominent direct single click).
No breach of Clause 14.1 (the panel, including the pop-up box, had been certified as required).
No rulings were made on Clauses 4.2, 4.4 or 4.9 (not cited / not subject of the complaint).

🔒

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