Ethypharm naloxone poster on telephone booth ruled to be public advertising of a POM (AUTH/3700/10/22)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3700/10/22
Parties	Health professional v Ethypharm
Material	Poster about naloxone displayed on the side of a telephone booth; included naloxone.org.uk
Reference / job code	UK-PREN-17
Date of preparation	February 2021
Complaint received	22 October 2022
Case completed	12 October 2023
Applicable Code year	2021
Breaches upheld	Clauses 5.1, 26.1, 26.2
No breach	Clause 2 (successfully appealed)
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
Key issue	Poster + linked website were considered to advertise a POM to the public and present unbalanced information likely to encourage seeking a specific formulation

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

📋

⌄

A health professional complained about an Ethypharm poster about naloxone displayed on the side of a telephone booth (REF UK-PREN-17; date of preparation February 2021).
The poster used prominent public-facing messaging (eg, “Carrying naloxone is easier than carrying a mate’s coffin” and “Carry naloxone. It could help save a life.”) and directed readers to naloxone.org.uk.
The Panel (and later the Appeal Board) considered the website address was an integral part of the poster; the website homepage (as accessed July 2023) showed images of Prenoxad (Ethypharm) and Nyxoid (another company).
Ethypharm argued it was a disease awareness / public health-style campaign to reduce opioid overdose deaths and noted that since 2015 naloxone could be supplied without a prescription under specific conditions (take-home naloxone), though naloxone remained a prescription only medicine (POM).
The certification documentation described the job as “Disease awareness on opioids overdose”, listed the product as Prenoxad, and stated dissemination included “billboards… and will be distributed via the Commercial Sales Team”; the target audience was listed as “Doctors, Other”.
On appeal, Ethypharm acknowledged it had “pushed the boundaries [of the Code]” and had not obtained health minister approval for the campaign.

⚖️

⌄

Breach upheld: Clause 26.1 (advertising a prescription only medicine to the public) – unsuccessfully appealed.
Breach upheld: Clause 26.2 (unbalanced information and encouraging the public to ask for a specific POM) – unsuccessfully appealed.
Breach upheld: Clause 5.1 (failing to maintain high standards) – unsuccessfully appealed.
No breach (on appeal): Clause 2 – the Appeal Board overturned the Panel’s Clause 2 breach in the unusual circumstances of this case.
Sanctions recorded on the PMCPA case page: Undertaking received. (No additional sanctions stated.)

📖

⌄

Clause 5.1 – Breach (Unsuccessfully appealed) – Failing to maintain high standards
Clause 26.1 – Breach (Unsuccessfully appealed) – Advertising a prescription only medicine to the public
Clause 26.2 – Breach (Unsuccessfully appealed) – Providing unbalanced information and encouraging members of the public to ask their health professional for a specific prescription only medicine
Clause 2 – No breach (successfully appealed) – Requirement that activities or materials must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry

🔒

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