AUTH/3861/12/23: Novartis – third‑party “conference update” email and webpage found to disguise promotion and use EU (not UK) prescribing context

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

Case numberAUTH/3861/12/23
CompanyNovartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited
Complaint sourceAnonymous, contactable complainant (doctor based in the UK)
Complaint received11 December 2023
Case completed23 April 2025
Applicable Code2021
AppealNo appeal
Material/channelThird-party publisher email and linked webpage with embedded videos, banner ads and resources
MedicinePluvicto (lutetium (177Lu) vipivotide tetraxetan)
Key compliance issuesDisguised promotion; insufficient sponsor declaration; EU (not UK) prescribing context shown to UK HCPs; missing UK PI and black triangle; promotion inconsistent with UK SPC particulars; governance/contract clarity and targeting controls
UK exposure notedWebpage accessed by 60 unique viewers from within the UK (per Novartis’ understanding from the publisher)
SanctionsUndertaking received; Additional sanctions: Advertisement

Download the full case report (PDF)


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
📋

What happened

  • A UK doctor received a third-party medical publisher email (21 Nov 2023) with the subject “ESMO 2023: Prostate Cancer Update”, implying an unbiased conference update.
  • The email’s “Watch now” link led to a webpage that integrated: (a) a third-party “practice-changing data” conference video and article, and (b) Novartis-controlled promotional elements for Pluvicto (banner ads, a “Vision study” promotional video, and a “Resources/Information from Industry” section).
  • The email only stated it was a “promotional communication” at the very bottom in very small font and did not identify Novartis as sponsor.
  • Novartis-controlled materials on the webpage used EU context (EU SmPC/indication) and did not include UK prescribing information (including UK cost) or the inverted black triangle.
  • Targeting error: Novartis Global instructed the publisher to target “Europe” (understood to include the UK), rather than the European Union only; Novartis UK was not consulted for local review/approval.
  • Novartis Global removed the Novartis-controlled content after the complaint; the webpage had been accessed by 60 unique UK viewers before removal (per Novartis’ understanding from the publisher).
⚖️

Outcome

  • Breach of Clause 2 Bringing discredit upon, and reducing confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry
  • Breach of Clause 5.1 (x2) Failing to maintain high standards
  • Breach of Clause 5.5 (x3) Failing to be sufficiently clear as to the company’s role and involvement
  • Breach of Clause 11.2 (x2) Promoting a medicine for an unlicensed indication
  • Breach of Clause 12.1 Failing to include UK prescribing information
  • Breach of Clause 12.10 Failing to include a black triangle adjacent to the first mention of the product in digital material
  • Breach of Clause 15.6 (x4) Disguising promotional material
  • No Breach of Clause 6.1 Requirement that information must be accurate, up-to-date and not misleading
  • No Breach of Clause 11.2 Requirement not to promote a medicine for an unlicensed indication
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value
£249/year
Annual — save £99
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free