AUTH/3832/10/23: AstraZeneca CKD education video on SGLT2 inhibitors

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3832/10/23
Company	AstraZeneca UK Limited
Complainant	Anonymous, contactable
Product / therapy area	Forxiga (dapagliflozin) / CKD; SGLT2 inhibitor class referenced
Material	Video: “Chronic Kidney Disease Management Made Simple” hosted on AstraZeneca medical platform website
Main allegation	Class mention of SGLT2 inhibitors indirectly promoted Forxiga; video lacked PI and AE reporting statements
Applicable Code year	2021
Clauses considered	2, 5.1, 12.1, 12.6, 12.9, 15.6
Panel decision	No breach of all clauses
Key reasoning	Balanced, neutral, class-level discussion; multiple SGLT2 inhibitors available for CKD; no direct/indirect reference to a specific medicine in context; therefore not promotional (Clause 1.17 exclusion applied)
Complaint received	6 October 2023
Case completed	3 December 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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, contactable complainant challenged a ~19-minute AstraZeneca-hosted video, “Chronic Kidney Disease Management Made Simple”, on AstraZeneca’s medical platform website.
The video featured two presenters: an external health professional and an AstraZeneca employee (AstraZeneca Medical).
The complainant alleged that mentioning “SGLT2 inhibitors” (a class that includes Forxiga/dapagliflozin) amounted to indirect promotion of Forxiga for chronic kidney disease (CKD).
The complainant highlighted two moments: (1) a slide listing treatment options including “SGLT2 inhibitors” and describing them as a “more recent” addition; (2) a case study where the external HCP said to consider “particularly the SGLT2 inhibitors”.
Because the complainant considered the video promotional, they alleged it should have included prescribing information and adverse event reporting statements.
AstraZeneca stated the video was non-promotional, educational, balanced, class-level, and did not reference any specific medicine; it also noted multiple SGLT2 inhibitors were available for CKD (not only Forxiga).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the ABPI Code (Applicable Code year: 2021).
The Panel concluded the video was “information relating to human health or diseases” and fell within the Clause 1.17 exclusion from “promotion” because there was no direct or indirect reference to a specific medicine in context.
As the material was not promotional, the promotional requirements cited by the complainant were not applicable.

🔒

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