Boehringer Ingelheim: ‘Unique convenience’ claim in Trajenta digital banner (AUTH/3601/1/22)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3601/1/22
Company	Boehringer Ingelheim Limited
Complainant	Concerned health professional
Material	Dynamic digital banner advertisement (animated banner) for Trajenta
Medicine	Trajenta (linagliptin)
Claim at issue	“Unique convenience through always one dose, once daily”
Applicable Code	2021
Clause(s) considered	Clause 14.4
Decision	No breach
Complaint received	20 January 2022
Case completed	20 February 2023
Appeal	No appeal
Where/when the ad ran	BMJ, Guidelines in Practice, Practice Nurse, Independent Nurse, Pulse; 15 April–30 September 2021
Notable Panel comment	Concern that AE reporting was provided via an external link; Panel referenced Clause 12.9 expectations and asked the company to review materials

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 concerned health professional complained about a dynamic digital banner advertisement for Trajenta (linagliptin) by Boehringer Ingelheim Limited.
The banner included the claim: “Unique convenience through always one dose, once daily”.
The complainant argued “unique” was an absolute claim and not qualified to a disease/therapy area; they cited other medicines (eg Cerazette) that are also one dose once daily.
Boehringer Ingelheim said the claim was made in the context of adult type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment and referred to combined dosing attributes (no dose adjustment for renal/liver impairment or elderly; no initiation dose; no titration), substantiated by the Trajenta SPC.
The ad was a 6-frame rotating banner shown on HCP platforms (BMJ, Guidelines in Practice, Practice Nurse, Independent Nurse, Pulse) between 15 April and 30 September 2021; complaint was made January 2022.
The Panel also noted (separately) a concern that adverse event reporting was provided via a single external link rather than as an integral part of the banner, referencing Clause 12.9 requirements, and asked the company to review materials accordingly.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 14.4 (2021 Code).
The Panel did not consider the complainant had established that the claim implied an unsubstantiated special merit, when read in the context of T2DM.
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