Alimera website ruled to promote Iluvien to the public via open-access patient support downloads (AUTH/3435/12/20)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3435/12/20
Parties	Complainant v Alimera Sciences Limited
Product	Iluvien (fluocinolone acetonide) intravitreal implant
Channel	Company website (iluvien.co.uk)
Main issues	Public access to patient-on-treatment support booklets; prescribing information legibility (excessive line length)
Applicable Code year	2019
Complaint received	3 December 2020
Case completed	30 June 2021
Appeal	No appeal
Breach clauses	4.1, 9.1, 26.1
No breach clauses	2
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 UK health professional complained about Alimera’s Iluvien (fluocinolone acetonide) intravitreal implant website (iluvien.co.uk).
The landing page offered two routes: “For UK Healthcare Professionals” and “For Patients and Public”.
The “Patients and Public” area included downloadable resources: a patient information leaflet (PIL), a patient education leaflet, and two “patient treatment support booklets” (one per indication) available directly from the landing page.
The complainant alleged the page mixed up “patients on treatment” with the general public, effectively promoting a prescription-only medicine (POM) to the public.
The complainant also alleged the prescribing information was difficult to read due to extremely long lines of text.

⚖️

⌄

Breach upheld: Clause 26.1 (promotion of a POM to the public) due to open access to materials aimed at patients already prescribed Iluvien, without clearly identifying/segregating that audience.
Breach upheld: Clause 4.1 (prescribing information not clear/legible) because line length (~115 characters incl. spaces) was excessive and could make it difficult to read on some devices.
Breach upheld: Clause 9.1 (failure to maintain high standards).
No breach: Clause 2 (Panel did not consider the circumstances warranted particular censure).
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