AUTH/3817/9/23: AstraZeneca SENTINEL Plus website and MART references — no breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3817/9/23
Company	AstraZeneca UK Limited
Complainant	Anonymous, contactable
Material / activity	SENTINEL Plus website (HCP resource) including references to Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (MART)
Main allegation	Indirect promotion of Symbicort via MART references; missing prescribing information and prominent AE reporting statement
Applicable Code year	2021
Clauses considered	2, 5.1, 12.1, 12.9
Panel decision	No breach of Clauses 2, 5.1, 12.1, 12.9
Rationale (in brief)	On balance and based on limited material, webpages were not promotional; MART is a treatment plan with multiple licensed inhalers and no specific medicine was referenced; therefore PI and AE statement not required
Complaint received	29 August 2023
Case completed	8 November 2024
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	None 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

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

An anonymous complainant alleged AstraZeneca’s SENTINEL Plus website (for HCPs) contained multiple references to Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (MART) in the context of increasing MART prescribing.
The complainant argued this was an indirect reference to AstraZeneca’s Symbicort (licensed for MART) and therefore constituted promotion.
They alleged the relevant pages lacked prescribing information (PI) and the prominent adverse event (AE) reporting statement.
AstraZeneca responded that the website was a non-promotional, balanced quality-improvement resource supporting evidence-based asthma guideline implementation; MART was discussed as an established approach with multiple licensed inhalers (six at the time), not a specific brand.
The Panel considered the limited webpages provided, noted the broad definition of promotion (Clause 1.17), and assessed whether the material pointed to a specific medicine.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 2.
No breach of Clause 5.1.
No breach of Clause 12.1.
No breach of Clause 12.9.
The Panel concluded (on balance, given limited material) the webpages at issue were not promotional; therefore PI and the AE reporting statement were not required.

📖

⌄

Clause 2 — Requirement that activities or materials must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry
Clause 5.1 — Requirement to maintain high standards
Clause 12.1 — Requirement to provide prescribing information in promotional material
Clause 12.9 — Requirement to include the prominent adverse event reporting statement

🔒

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