AbbVie breached ABPI Code over Skyrizi banner implying BAD guidelines specifically recommended it first line

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3496/3/21
Company	AbbVie Ltd
Product	Skyrizi (risankizumab)
Channel/material	Digital banner advertisement on the British Dermatological Nursing Group website (ref UK-RISN-200416)
Main claim at issue	“BAD Guidelines recommend Skyrizi as a first line biologic”
Indication referenced	Treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who were candidates for systemic therapy
Complainant	Contactable complainant who described him/herself as a health professional (anonymous)
Applicable Code year	2019
Clauses breached	7.2; 7.4
Complaint received	26 March 2021
Case completed	13 October 2021
Appeal	No appeal
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 digital banner ad for Skyrizi (risankizumab) placed by AbbVie on the British Dermatological Nursing Group website.
The banner headline stated: “BAD [British Association of Dermatologists] Guidelines recommend Skyrizi as a first line biologic”.
An asterisk footnote said: “For adults with psoriasis who fulfil the criteria for biologic therapy, using the decision aid to inform treatment choice. This is not a comprehensive data source. Please refer to full published guidelines and drug summaries of product characteristics (SPCs).”
The complainant said the BAD guidelines did not recommend Skyrizi specifically; they recommended that any currently licensed biologic could be offered as first-line therapy.
AbbVie argued the wording used “a first line biologic” (not “the/only”) and that Skyrizi was within the scope of the guideline’s biologics list.
The Panel found the immediate impression to a busy health professional was that BAD had singled out and specifically recommended Skyrizi, which the guideline did not do.

⚖️

⌄

The claim was ruled misleading because it implied BAD guidelines specifically recommended Skyrizi over other biologics.
The misleading impression could not be substantiated by the cited guideline.
Breach rulings were made under Clauses 7.2 and 7.4 (ABPI Code year 2019).
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