GSK: “Trevor trusts Trelegy” website claim ruled misleading and unsubstantiated (AUTH/3785/6/23)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3785/6/23
Company	GlaxoSmithKline UK Limited (GSK)
Product	Trelegy Ellipta (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol)
Channel	GSKPro promotional website (HCP-gated) and embedded promotional video
Main issue	Claim “Trevor trusts Trelegy*” ruled ambiguous, misleading, and not capable of substantiation
Secondary issue	Spoken phrase “there’s life in this old dog yet” in video (no breach)
Applicable Code year	2021
Complaint received	27 June 2023
Case completed	22 October 2024
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions applied	Undertaking received

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 complainant challenged promotional content for Trelegy on GSK’s HCP website (GSKPro).
The homepage carried a prominent claim: “Trevor trusts Trelegy*”, with a qualifier: “*But Trevor is only a dog that wants walkies! Consult our data to see why 1,2”.
The page included a promotional video about a COPD patient (David) and his dog (Trevor). The video included the spoken phrase: “We may be older and greyer than we used to be but there’s life in this old dog yet”.
The complainant alleged the “trust” claim was unsupported and misleading (whether referring to patients or the dog), and that the “life in this old dog yet” phrase implied extended life expectancy.
GSK acknowledged breaches for the “Trevor trusts Trelegy” claim (Clauses 6.1, 6.2, 5.1) but denied breaches regarding the colloquial phrase and denied Clause 2 overall.
GSK removed the webpage the same day, suspended all Trelegy promotional pages on GSKPro, convened an Incident Management Team, and initiated a broader review/recall activity across respiratory materials (details of CAPA were removed from the published report).

⚖️

⌄

Breach upheld for the “Trevor trusts Trelegy” claim: it was considered ambiguous, misleading, and not capable of substantiation.
No breach for the phrase “there’s life in this old dog yet”: the Panel considered it an established colloquialism unlikely to be interpreted as a mortality/life expectancy claim.
Breach of high standards: the Panel was concerned that internal documentation referenced “deliberate ambiguity” and that, despite suitability being questioned, there appeared to be no further substantive discussion about whether the claim was misleading or substantiable.
No breach of Clause 2: the Panel considered the issues were adequately addressed by the other breach rulings and noted GSK’s investigation and corrective/preventive measures.

📖

⌄

Breach of Clause 6.1 Making a misleading claim
Breach of Clause 6.2 Making an unsubstantiated claim
Breach of Clause 5.1 Failing to maintain high standards
No Breach of Clause 6.1 Requirement that claims must not be misleading
No Breach of Clause 6.2 Requirement that claims must be capable of substantiation
No Breach of Clause 2 Requirement that materials must not bring discredit upon, or reduce the 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