Napp breach over BMJ hosted “Invokana” panel: promotional teaser lacked prescribing information link (AUTH/3254/10/19)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3254/10/19
Company	Napp Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Product	Invokana (canagliflozin)
Channel/material	Introductory panel on BMJ hosted page (bmj.com), linking to a BMJ-hosted microsite; included hover pop-up
Complainant	Concerned UK health professional
Main issue	Panel deemed promotional; lacked clear and prominent single-click statement/link to prescribing information on the panel itself
Breach clauses	Clause 4.1
No breach clauses	Clause 14.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received
Complaint received	7 October 2019
Case completed	12 February 2020
Applicable Code year	2019
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 (canagliflozin) content on a BMJ hosted page appeared promotional and lacked prescribing information and a unique identifier.
The material was an “introductory panel” on a BMJ hosted page with multiple panels linking to microsites; the Invokana panel showed the brand logo/name and the line “The renal reason to intensify”.
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 panels were not standalone promotional items (BMJ said they were not adverts) and that prescribing information and a job code were present on the linked BMJ-hosted microsite.
The Panel decided the panel (including the hover pop-up) was itself promotional and that readers might not click through to the microsite where prescribing information was available.

⚖️

⌄

Breach: Clause 4.1 (failure to include a clear and prominent statement as to where prescribing information could be found by way of a clear and prominent direct single click, on the promotional panel itself).
No breach: Clause 14.1 (the panel, including the pop-up box, had been certified as required).
The Panel noted unique identifiers are good practice (per certification guidelines) but the Code did not cite them as a clause requirement in this case; no ruling was made on that point.

🔒

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