AUTH/3557/9/21: Pharmacist v GlaxoSmithKline (Seretide Evohaler price comparison) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3557/9/21
Complainant	Anonymous pharmacist (primary care network), non-contactable
Company	GlaxoSmithKline UK Limited
Product	Seretide Evohaler (salmeterol/fluticasone propionate)
Materials	GSK Pro HCP website (PM-GB-FPS-WCNT-200001 (2.0); prepared Oct 2020) and journal advertisement (PM-GB-FPS-ADVT-190005; prepared Mar 2020)
Main allegation	Unfair/misleading price comparison vs Fostair 100/6; “over £5 cheaper” at medium dose; alleged “apples with pears” and omission of cheaper same-molecule alternatives
Key claim/value	£23.45 Seretide Evohaler 125/25 (2 puffs b.d) vs £29.32 Fostair 100/6 (2 puffs b.d) (medium dose; standardised to 30 days)
Panel decision	No breach
Clauses considered	2021 Code: 6.1, 6.2, 5.1; 2019 Code (journal ad): 7.2, 7.4, 9.1
Complaint received	3 September 2021
Case completed	26 April 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 (pharmacist in a primary care network) challenged GSK’s promotion of Seretide Evohaler (salmeterol/fluticasone propionate).
The complaint focused on a GSK Pro HCP website (PM-GB-FPS-WCNT-200001 (2.0); prepared Oct 2020) and a journal advertisement (PM-GB-FPS-ADVT-190005; prepared Mar 2020).
Both materials compared Seretide Evohaler and Fostair 100/6 at “medium dose” for asthma and claimed Seretide was “over £5 cheaper”.
The complainant argued the comparison was “apples with pears” because Fostair also had a COPD indication and could be used in MART, and because cheaper fluticasone/salmeterol alternatives (eg Sereflo) existed.
GSK said the comparison was like-for-like for the same indication (asthma) and equivalent dosing, using BTS/SIGN asthma guideline dose definitions and MIMS prices (standardised to 30 days).
The Panel noted the website also showed (via a graph further down) that Seretide was more expensive at low dose and the same price at high dose, though it was concerned this might not be immediately apparent at the top of the page.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled in relation to the website price comparison: no breach of Clauses 6.1, 6.2 and 5.1 (2021 Code).
No breach of the Code was ruled in relation to the journal advertisement (considered under the 2019 Code because it was withdrawn in Jan 2021): no breach of Clauses 7.2, 7.4 and 9.1 (2019 Code).
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