Roche Resources website: illegible generic name and misleading Ocrevus dosing cadence (AUTH/3541/7/21)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3541/7/21
Complainant	Anonymous health professional (not contactable on details provided)
Company	Roche Products Ltd
Channel	Roche Resources website (HCP-facing)
Medicines referenced	Gazyvaro (obinutuzumab), Phesgo, Hemlibra (emicizumab), Ocrevus
Complaint received	15 July 2021
Case completed	27 May 2022
Applicable Code year	2021
Appeal	No appeal
Breach clauses	6.1, 6.2, 12.3
No breach clauses	2, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.5, 11.2, 14.1
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous health professional complained about alleged errors/omissions across several pages on Roche Products Ltd’s “Roche Resources” website (HCP-facing).
Medicines landing page: alleged the non-proprietary name for Gazyvaro was not legible; also challenged portfolio/“new and improved therapies” wording as misleading, comparative, and potentially off-label.
Phesgo page: challenged the claim that administration and monitoring “requires just 20–38 minutes” as misleading without separating loading vs maintenance timings.
Hemlibra page: challenged the claim “With the sustained protection of HEMLIBRA, life can be beautifully spontaneous” as misleading.
Ocrevus page: challenged the claim “OCREVUS is dosed every 6 months” as misleading because the SPC includes an initial split dose (two infusions two weeks apart) and specifies timing of the first subsequent dose.
The complainant also alleged repeated breach of Clause 2 (patient safety values).

⚖️

⌄

Breach upheld: Gazyvaro non-proprietary name (obinutuzumab) was small/blurry and not easily readable on the medicines page.
No breach: “Our aim is to develop new and improved therapies…” was treated as a forward-looking aim, not a “new product” claim about the listed medicines.
No breach: The “portfolio of therapies…” therapy-area statement was not considered off-licence promotion of the listed medicines.
No breach: Phesgo “20–38 minutes” claim was referenced to the SPC and the complainant did not establish it was misleading or unsubstantiated.
No breach (on the narrow allegation made): Hemlibra “life can be beautifully spontaneous” claim was not shown to imply “life would be beautiful after taking Hemlibra”.
Breach upheld: Ocrevus “dosed every 6 months” claim was misleading because it omitted key initial dosing structure and timing of the first subsequent dose; the misleading impression was also ruled incapable of substantiation.
No breach: Clause 5.1 (high standards) not breached in relation to Ocrevus page in the particular circumstances (additional dosing info available via further click).
No breach: Clause 2 not breached overall.

🔒

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