AUTH/3913/5/24: Complainant v Idorsia — website signposting to eMC and “NICE recommended” claim (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3913/5/24
Company	Idorsia Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd
Complainant	Anonymous contactable complainant (concerned healthcare professional)
Product	Quviviq (daridorexant)
Channel	Company website (HCP portal) with public signposting to eMC
Main issues alleged	Promotion of a POM to the public via eMC redirect; “NICE recommended for chronic insomnia” statement alleged untrue/misleading
Applicable Code	2021
Clauses considered	2; 5.1; 6.1; 11.2; 26.1
Outcome	No breach of the Code
Complaint received	28 May 2024
Case completed	8 April 2025
Appeal	No appeal

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, contactable complainant (a concerned healthcare professional) complained about Idorsia’s UK HCP portal website (pro.idorsia.uk).
Allegation 1: The landing page offered two self-selection options (“I am a UK healthcare professional” / “I am a member of the public”). The complainant alleged that selecting “member of the public” redirected users to the Electronic Medicines Compendium (eMC) product listing for Quviviq (daridorexant), which they said amounted to promotion of a POM to the public.
Allegation 2: On the HCP page for Quviviq, a statement near the top said “NICE recommended for chronic insomnia”. The complainant alleged this was untrue because NICE’s recommendation included restrictions (including CBTi criteria) and was more restrictive than the licensed indication.
Idorsia said the public pathway went to non-promotional reference information (SPC/PIL) on eMC via an interstitial “leaving site” message, and that the NICE statement was an accurate summary and referenced the NICE Technology Appraisal (TA922).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 26.1 (Requirement not to advertise prescription only medicines to the public).
No breach of Clause 6.1 (Requirement that information, claims and comparisons must not be misleading).
No breach of Clause 11.2 (Requirement that a medicine must be promoted in accordance with the terms of its marketing authorisation and must not be inconsistent with the particulars listed in its summary of product characteristics).
No breach of Clause 5.1 (x2) (Requirement to maintain high standards at all times).
No breach of Clause 2 (Requirement that activities or materials must not bring discredit upon, or reduce 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