AUTH/3901/5/24: Complainant v GSK — Jemperli HCP website (mobile vs desktop certification and “manageable safety profile” claim) — No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3901/5/24
Company	GSK UK Limited
Complainant	Contactable complainant who described themselves as a health professional
Material	Four webpages of a UK HCP promotional website (GSKPro) for Jemperli (dostarlimab)
Main issues alleged	(1) Mobile vs desktop differences required separate certification; (2) “manageable safety profile” claim misleading/unqualified
Key claim at issue	“JEMPERLI + CP offers a manageable safety profile consistent with the known profiles of its individual components after 2 years of follow-up”
Applicable Code	2021 ABPI Code of Practice
Panel decision	No breach of Clauses 2, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 8.1
Appeal	No appeal
Complaint received	12 May 2024
Case completed	30 April 2025

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

📋

⌄

A health professional complained about four webpages within GSK’s UK HCP promotional site (GSKPro) for Jemperli (dostarlimab).
They alleged the mobile versions differed from desktop (text colour/placement and a mobile “Product menu” navigation label) and therefore required separate certification for mobile.
They also alleged a homepage claim was misleading/unqualified: “JEMPERLI + CP offers a manageable safety profile consistent with the known profiles of its individual components after 2 years of follow-up”, arguing serious AEs can require permanent discontinuation (black triangle product).
GSK said desktop and mobile views were reviewed and certified within the same job; differences were formatting/navigation for legibility and user experience, not substantive content changes.
GSK argued “manageable” was supportable in oncology context and consistent with SmPC guidance that management can include discontinuation, plus trial/publication support.

⚖️

⌄

📖

⌄

Clause 2 Requirement that activities or materials must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry (No Breach x2)
Clause 5.1 Requirement to maintain high standards at all times (No Breach x2)
Clause 6.1 Requirement that information/ claims/ comparisons must not be misleading (No Breach)
Clause 6.2 Requirement that information/ claims/ comparisons must be capable of substantiation (No Breach)
Clause 8.1 Requirement to certify promotional material (No Breach)

🔒

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