AUTH/3587/12/21: Anonymous health professional v AstraZeneca (Symbicort cost calculator webpage) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3587/12/21
Complainant	Anonymous complainant (self-described health professional)
Company	AstraZeneca
Product	Symbicort (budesonide formoterol fumarate dihydrate)
Material	Webpage (Symbicort cost calculator) on medicines.astrazeneca.co.uk
Main allegations	Omission of prescribing information and non-proprietary name adjacent to brand; alleged breach of undertaking from AUTH/3488/3/21; alleged Clause 2 issue
Applicable Code	2021
Clauses considered	2, 3.3, 5.1, 12.1, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6
Panel decision	No breach of Clauses 2, 3.3, 5.1, 12.1, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6
Appeal	Yes – by the complainant; unsuccessful
Complaint received	2 December 2021
Case completed	16 June 2022
Sanctions	None

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 complainant (self-described health professional) complained about a Symbicort (budesonide formoterol fumarate dihydrate) cost-calculator webpage on medicines.astrazeneca.co.uk.
The complainant alleged the page (and a subsequent graph after accepting a disclaimer) repeatedly referenced Symbicort and price/cost claims but did not include prescribing information or the non-proprietary name adjacent to brand mentions.
The complainant also alleged this repeated an issue from a previous case (AUTH/3488/3/21) and therefore breached an undertaking, and that the “spirit of the Code” was not met (including an allegation under Clause 2).
AstraZeneca stated the material was still undergoing internal approval (job bag GB-31361), had not been certified or issued, and could only be accessed via a specific, complex staging/test URL link used by the internal approval team (not navigable from the site and not indexed for search engines).
The Panel noted the webpage was not restricted and did not indicate it was draft, but considered the evidence suggested it was internal draft content accessed via a staging/test link.
The complainant appealed, alleging the page was live and navigable on the main site and that a technical malfunction had made it publicly accessible; AstraZeneca said there was no evidence of this and that access logs showed only one external access consistent with the PMCPA case preparation manager.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the ABPI Code of Practice (2021).
The Panel ruled no breach of Clauses 12.1, 12.3, 12.4 and 12.6 (obligatory information requirements) because the material appeared to be internal draft content on a staging/test link.
No breach of Clause 3.3 (undertakings) – the undertaking from AUTH/3488/3/21 was not breached.
No breach of Clause 5.1 (high standards).
No breach of Clause 2 (reserved for particular censure).
Appeal by the complainant was unsuccessful; the Appeal Board upheld all “no breach” rulings.

🔒

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