Daiichi-Sankyo: Lixiana journal ad breached overleaf prescribing information signposting requirements (AUTH/3506/4/21)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3506/4/21
Company	Daiichi-Sankyo UK Ltd
Product	Lixiana (edoxaban)
Material type	Two-page hard copy print journal advertisement
Publication	Guidelines in Practice (March 2021, Volume 24, Issue 3)
Placement	Ad page 11; prescribing information overleaf page 12
Job code / prep date	EDX/20/1152; November 2020
Main issue upheld	Missing reference on the outer page to prescribing information being overleaf; “For more information please visit www.lixiana.co.uk” could imply no further info in the ad
Applicable Code year	2019
Complaint received	23 April 2021
Case completed	6 December 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 complainant (later non-contactable) challenged a two-page hard-copy journal advertisement for Lixiana (edoxaban) in Guidelines in Practice (March 2021, Vol 24, Issue 3).
The ad (job code EDX/20/1152; prepared November 2020) appeared on page 11 with prescribing information (PI) overleaf on page 12.
The ad featured an image of a patient with multiple heads and the claim “24 HOUR STROKE PREVENTION IN ONE DOAC PILL”.
It included pack shots of Lixiana 30mg and 60mg with the claim “ONCE-DAILY DOAC FOR YOUR AGEING PATIENTS WITH NVAF”.
The outer page stated prominently: “For more information please visit www.lixiana.co.uk”.
Allegations: (1) imagery implied use in <75s (allegedly off-licence/misleading), (2) dosing presentation implied either strength could be used in any ageing NVAF patient, (3) missing required reference on the outer page to PI being overleaf.

⚖️

⌄

Allegation 1 (illustration): No breach of Clauses 3.2, 7.2, 9.1 and 2.
Allegation 2 (dosing): No breach of Clauses 3.2, 7.2, 7.4, 9.1 and 2.
Allegation 3 (reference to PI overleaf): Breach of Clause 4.7.
High standards: Breach of Clause 9.1 (linked to the missing overleaf PI reference and the impression created by “For more information please visit www.lixiana.co.uk”).
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