Tetris Pharma: LinkedIn sponsored message for Ogluo reached a non-HCP (public promotion) and lacked required safety/INN elements

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3745/2/23
Company	Tetris Pharma
Product	Ogluo (glucagon)
Channel	LinkedIn sponsored message (inbox messaging format)
Main issue	Promotion of a prescription only medicine to a member of the public
Secondary issues	Missing non-proprietary name adjacent to brand name at first appearance; missing prominent adverse event reporting statement in message body
Applicable Code year	2021
Breach clauses	5.1, 12.3, 12.9, 26.1
Complaint received	08 February 2023
Case completed	03 April 2024
Appeal	No appeal
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

📋

⌄

A named complainant (not a health professional) received a LinkedIn sponsored message (Feb 2022) promoting Ogluo (glucagon), a prescription only medicine.
The message introduced Ogluo, described product features (ready-to-use pen, room temperature stability, licensed from age 2+), and suggested potential health-economic benefits (eg reducing ambulance call outs).
The message asked to chat about which “patients could benefit” and included a link to prescribing information.
The complainant alleged: (1) promotion of a POM to the public, (2) no non-proprietary name adjacent to brand name at first mention, and (3) no adverse event reporting statement in the message body.
Tetris said the campaign was targeted to UK healthcare professionals using multiple LinkedIn criteria (location + job title/company + skills/field of study), and that the format was private inbox messaging (not shareable like feed ads).
Tetris accepted the missing non-proprietary name at first appearance was due to human error during review/approval and uncertainty about how the subject line would appear.
Tetris accepted the adverse event reporting statement was not in the message body (it was one click away in linked prescribing information) and said later PMCPA guidance clarified this was not sufficient.
Tetris denied failing to maintain high standards and denied public promotion, arguing it took reasonable steps to target HCPs only.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 26.1 (Promoting a prescription only medicine to the public).
Breach of Clause 12.3 (Failing to include the non-proprietary name immediately adjacent to the brand name at its first appearance in an electronic advertisement).
Breach of Clause 12.9 (Failing to include the prominent adverse event reporting statement).
Breach of Clause 5.1 (Failing to maintain high standards).
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