Santen: Cosopt wrap-around ad visible through journal wrapper promoted a POM to the public and omitted generic name

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3461/1/21
Complainant	Contactable complainant (health professional)
Company	Santen UK Limited
Product	Cosopt (dorzolamide and timolol) eye drops
Material	Journal wrap-around advertisement (ref PP-CSPT-UK-0006) in The Ophthalmologist (December 2020)
Main issues	Public visibility of POM promotion via transparent wrapper; missing non-proprietary name; alleged misleading PI direction; alleged misleading imagery
Applicable Code year	2019
Complaint received	21 January 2021
Case completed	17 June 2021
Appeal	No appeal
No breach clauses	4.7, 7.2
Breach clauses	4.3, 9.1, 26.1
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 health professional complained about a wrap-around journal advertisement for Cosopt (dorzolamide and timolol) in The Ophthalmologist (Dec 2020) (ref PP-CSPT-UK-0006).
The wrap-around was visible through the journal’s transparent plastic wrapper, meaning the Cosopt branding could be seen by the general public.
The complainant alleged: (a) POM advertising to the public, (b) the non-proprietary name was missing, (c) the statement that prescribing information (PI) was “overleaf” was misleading because PI was “inside” the wrap-around, and (d) the eagle imagery implied improved vision.
Santen said the “overleaf” reference was accurate because PI was on the reverse of the outer page (inside the wrap-around).
Santen acknowledged the printed version lacked the non-proprietary name due to a technical/printing issue, despite the certified and supplied file including it.
Santen acknowledged it had not requested an opaque wrapper for that edition, leading to public visibility.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 4.7 (the “overleaf” PI direction was not misleading).
No breach of Clause 7.2 (eagle imagery/headline did not mislead the specialist audience into thinking vision would be improved).
Breach of Clause 4.3 (non-proprietary name not immediately adjacent to the most prominent display of the brand name in the final printed version).
Breach of Clause 26.1 (transparent wrapper meant a prescription-only medicine was promoted to the public).
Breach of Clause 9.1 (failure to maintain high standards).
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