Anonymous v Novartis: ‘Powerful. Proven. Targeted.’ Lucentis strapline ruled ambiguous (breach) in journal ads and HCP webpage

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3531/7/21
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable (described as an optometrist)
Company	Novartis Pharmaceutical UK Limited
Product	Lucentis (ranibizumab)
Materials	Two UK ophthalmic journal advertisements and a Novartis HCP webpage
Key claims challenged	“Powerful. Proven. Targeted.”; “Lucentis allows you to treat your DMO patients at the maximum possible interval”
MLR references	MLR ID 116486; MLR ID 114580
Applicable Code year	2019
Breach clauses	Clauses 7.2, 7.4, 9.1
No breach clauses	Clause 2; Clauses 7.2, 7.4 (for “Proven” and “Targeted”)
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
Complaint received	1 July 2021
Case completed	23 February 2022
Appeal	No appeal

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, non-contactable complainant (described as an optometrist) challenged Novartis promotional materials for Lucentis (ranibizumab) seen in UK ophthalmic journals and on a Novartis HCP webpage.
The materials included the strapline “Powerful. Proven. Targeted.” beneath the Lucentis logo, referenced to the SPC.
The complainant alleged the strapline lacked context/supporting data and that “Powerful”, “Proven” and “Targeted” were meaningless or misleading without clarification.
The complainant also queried the claim “Lucentis allows you to treat your DMO patients at the maximum possible interval” (what interval—month/year?).
Novartis accepted that “Powerful” was ambiguous and agreed to remove it from marketing materials; it defended “Proven”, “Targeted” and the dosing-interval statement.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 7.2 and Clause 7.4 for the use of the word “Powerful” (in each of the two advertisements and the webpage).
No breach of Clauses 7.2 and 7.4 for “Proven”.
No breach of Clauses 7.2 and 7.4 for “Targeted” (complainant did not establish misleadingness on the balance of probabilities in the circumstances).
No breach of Clause 7.2 for the dosing-interval claim, because the advertisement explained the interval and included a dosing diagram/algorithm and caveat about individual disease activity.
Breach of Clause 9.1 (failure to maintain high standards), linked to the above breach findings.
No breach of Clause 2.
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