GSK: ERS 2022 symposium highlights video ruled misleading on NMA-based COPD comparisons (Trelegy) (AUTH/3715/11/22)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3715/11/22
Company	GSK
Complaint received	28 November 2022
Case completed	18 December 2023
Applicable Code year	2021
Material	ERS 2022 symposium highlights video on GSK respiratory promotional website (Trelegy Ellipta promotional site)
Medicine	Trelegy Ellipta (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol; FF/UMEC/VI)
Therapy area	COPD
Main issue	Misleading implication of statistically significant exacerbation benefits vs comparators (including other SITTs) based on NMA presentation and voiceover
Breach clauses	Clause 5.1; Clause 6.1 (x4); Clause 6.2 (x2); Clause 14.1 (x4)
No breach clauses	Clause 2; Clause 6.6 (x2)
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, contactable complainant challenged a video on GSK’s UK respiratory promotional website (Trelegy Ellipta site) summarising a GSK ERS 2022 symposium.
The video presented results from a GSK network meta-analysis (Ismaila et al) comparing Trelegy (FF/UMEC/VI) with other triple and dual COPD therapies, including other single-inhaler triple therapies (SITTs) such as Trimbow and Trixeo.
The complaint focused on two parts of the video:
- A slide/headline and voiceover about “greater improvements” in annualised moderate/severe exacerbations vs “most comparators”, and a spoken claim implying statistical significance vs other SITTs.
- A conclusions slide/voiceover that, in the Panel’s view, blurred statistical significance for lung function with “greater improvement” for exacerbations, creating an overall impression that exacerbation reductions were statistically significant vs alternative therapies.
- The complainant also alleged health professionals had been paid to provide misleading claims.
- GSK accepted that one spoken use of “significantly” in relation to exacerbation outcomes vs other SITTs was inaccurate and was not picked up in certification; GSK withdrew the video version.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 5.1 (Failing to maintain high standards).
Breach of Clause 6.1 (x4) (Making a misleading claim).
Breach of Clause 6.2 (x2) (Making a claim incapable of substantiation).
Breach of Clause 14.1 (x4) (Making a misleading comparison).
No Breach of Clause 2 (Requirement that activities or materials must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry).
No Breach of Clause 6.6 (x2) (Requirement that another company’s medicines must not be disparaged).
No breach was found for the allegation that HCPs had been paid to provide misleading claims (the Panel said the complainant had not established this).

🔒

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