AUTH/3922/6/24: Complainant v GSK — Trelegy banner alleged off-label switch claim (No breach)

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

Case numberAUTH/3922/6/24
CompanyGSK UK Limited
ComplainantAnonymous, contactable health professional (later became non-contactable)
MedicineTrelegy Ellipta (fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, vilanterol)
MaterialRevolving/rotating 5-frame banner advertisement on GSKPro (UK promotional site for HCPs)
Main allegationUnlicensed/off-label promotion: implied switch from three inhalers (alleged ICS/LABA + LAMA + SABA) to Trelegy
Applicable Code2021
Clauses considered2; 5.1; 11.2 (x2)
Panel decisionNo breach of Clauses 2, 5.1, 11.2 (x2)
AppealNo appeal
Complaint received8 June 2024
Case completed17 July 2025
Material status (per company)Withdrawn since 22 June 2023

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

  • An anonymous health professional complained about a 5-frame rotating banner advert on GSK’s UK HCP promotional site (GSKPro) for Trelegy Ellipta.
  • The banner used an image of a COPD patient (“John”) with three inhalers on a table and rotating captions including: “58% of COPD Triple Therapy patients in UK are juggling multiple devices. Would a simpler routine make their lives easier?”
  • The complainant alleged the imagery/caption promoted switching from “open triple therapy” (described as ICS/LABA + LAMA + SABA) to Trelegy, which they said was outside the licence.
  • GSK said the material had been withdrawn since 22 June 2023 (complaint received 8 June 2024).
  • GSK argued the blue inhaler depicted a SABA reliever (acute use) and that “triple therapy” in this context referred to maintenance therapy (ICS/LABA + LAMA), with Trelegy being a single-inhaler triple therapy option.
  • The Panel assessed whether the advert promoted a switch from three inhalers including a SABA, and whether promoting simplification for “triple therapy patients” was outside the marketing authorisation.
⚖️

Outcome

  • No breach of Clause 2.
  • No breach of Clause 5.1.
  • No breach of Clause 11.2 (x2).
  • No appeal.
🔒

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