AUTH/3719/12/22: GSK – Trelegy website claims, NMA presentation and Ellipta device messaging | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3719/12/22
Parties	Chiesi/Director v GSK UK Limited
Material type	Website pages (Trelegy on GSKPro), embedded video, ERS 2022 leavepiece, banner advertisement
Therapy area	COPD (single-inhaler triple therapy)
Products referenced	Trelegy Ellipta; Ellipta device; competitor inhalers depicted included Fostair (Chiesi), Braltus (Teva), Salamol (Teva) (as confirmed during dialogue)
Main issues	Ambiguous “only choice…in-class superior components” claim; misleading NMA-based superiority framing and visuals; misleading/unfair Ellipta device messaging; banner ad alleged disparagement (not upheld)
Applicable Code	2021 ABPI Code of Practice
Complaint received	19 December 2022
Case completed	14 March 2024
Appeal	Complainant appeal; successful on Clause 6.1/6.2 for homepage “only choice…” claim; unsuccessful on undertaking allegation
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated

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

📋

⌄

Chiesi complained about GSK promotional materials for Trelegy (website pages, an embedded video and an ERS 2022 leavepiece).
Four issues were escalated: (1) a rotating banner ad showing competitor inhalers next to a “Climate Emergency” headline; (2) “only choice with 21st century molecules & evidence of in-class superior components”; (3) claims based on a GSK-sponsored network meta-analysis (Ismaila et al 2022) implying superiority vs other single-inhaler triple therapies; (4) Ellipta device claim: “Don’t settle for a MDI, when you can give the preferred, easy-to-use Ellipta device”.
Chiesi also alleged GSK breached an undertaking from a previous case (AUTH/3260/10/19).
Chiesi appealed Panel “no breach” rulings on: alleged breach of undertaking (Clauses 3.3/5.1/2) and the homepage version of the “only choice…in-class superior components” claim (Clauses 6.1/6.2).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 6.1 and Clause 6.6 for the banner advertisement (not misleading; not disparaging). No breach of Clause 5.1 in relation to the banner advertisement.
Breach for the “only choice…evidence of in-class superior components” claim due to ambiguity (molecules page: Panel breach; homepage: breach at appeal).
Breach for NMA-based exacerbation reduction messaging and associated visuals where non-significant results (vs Trimbow) were presented in a way that misled; and for a combined lung function/exacerbation claim on the leavepiece.
Breach for the Ellipta device claim (“preferred” and “don’t settle for an MDI” created a misleading/unfair impression; and use of “the” implied special merit).
No breach of Clause 3.3 (undertaking) and therefore no breach of Clause 5.1 and Clause 2 in relation to the undertaking allegation (upheld at 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