Boehringer Ingelheim breached Clause 4.3 after omitting generic names next to Spiolto/Spiriva brand names on hosted webpage

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3317/3/20
Complainant	Anonymous (concerned UK health professional)
Company	Boehringer Ingelheim
Issue	Failure to include non-proprietary (generic) names immediately adjacent to brand names at first appearance on an electronic advertisement
Material	Guidelines in Practice webpage hosting video “Respimat Soft Mist reusable inhaler: patient benefits and environmental impact” (ref PC-UK-102088 V1)
Medicines referenced	Spiolto Respimat; Spiriva Respimat
Code year	2019
Clause(s) breached	Clause 4.3
Complaint received	9 March 2020
Case completed	18 June 2020
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	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 complainant (a concerned UK health professional) raised concerns about a Guidelines in Practice webpage hosting a Boehringer Ingelheim promotional video: “Respimat Soft Mist reusable inhaler: patient benefits and environmental impact” (ref PC-UK-102088 V1).
The webpage included the statements “View Spiolto prescribing information” and “View Spiriva prescribing information”.
These were the only mentions of the medicines on the webpage and therefore the first appearance of the brand names.
The non-proprietary names were not shown immediately adjacent to the brand names at first appearance (as required for electronic advertisements).
Boehringer Ingelheim said the page was accessible to health professionals who had agreed to be contacted with promotional information and had been emailed a link.
On becoming aware of the complaint, Boehringer Ingelheim took down the page, updated it to add the non-proprietary names, and recertified the content.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found: Yes.
The Panel ruled a breach of Clause 4.3 (as acknowledged by Boehringer Ingelheim).
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