AUTH/3923/6/24: Complainant v GSK — Trelegy sales aid alleged off-label promotion (No breach)

📅 2024 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

Case numberAUTH/3923/6/24
CompanyGSK UK Limited
ComplainantAnonymous, contactable health professional (later non-contactable)
MedicineTrelegy Ellipta (fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, vilanterol)
Material typeRepresentatives’ electronic sales aid(s)
Main allegationOff-label/unlicensed promotion: Trelegy promoted for patients not adequately treated on multiple inhaler triple therapy (MITT)
Applicable Code2021
Clauses considered2, 5.1, 11.2
Panel decisionNo breach of Clauses 11.2, 5.1, 2
AppealNo appeal
Complaint received9 June 2024
Case completed17 July 2025
Sales aids referenced by GSK (examples provided)Primary care Anoro/Trelegy combined eDA (V4) in use 29/3/2023–26/6/2023; Primary care Trelegy Real-World Effectiveness and Device deck (V2) in use 14/9/2023–11/11/2023; Secondary care Trelegy sales aid (V3) in use 29/3/2023–26/6/2023; Combined primary/secondary Trelegy sales aid (V2) in use from 11/11/2023

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
🎬 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
📋

What happened

  • An anonymous, contactable complainant (health professional) alleged that GSK COPD representatives’ Trelegy sales aid(s) used throughout 2023 promoted Trelegy Ellipta for an unlicensed indication.
  • The allegation: the materials promoted Trelegy for COPD patients “not adequately treated on multiple (open) triple therapy” (MITT), e.g., patients using an ICS/LABA inhaler plus a separate LAMA inhaler.
  • The complainant argued Trelegy’s indication was limited to patients not adequately treated on dual therapy (ICS/LABA or LABA/LAMA), so MITT-focused promotion would be off-label.
  • The complainant did not provide the specific sales aid or specific wording; the complainant later became non-contactable.
  • GSK explained that in 2023 it used four electronic sales aids (with multiple versions due to updates) and provided four examples representing the longest duration of use.
  • The Panel assessed the general principle of promoting a switch from MITT to Trelegy (SITT), given the lack of a specific piece/claim to assess.
⚖️

Outcome

  • No breach of Clause 11.2 (promotion in accordance with marketing authorisation/SmPC).
  • No breach of Clause 5.1 (high standards).
  • No breach of Clause 2 (no discredit to the industry).
  • 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

⭐ Business Intelligence Access

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export.

Request Access →
⭐ Flagship Programme

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

12 modules. 12 weeks. Final Signatory readiness. The industry standard for ABPI Code signatories — £995 + VAT.

Enrol — AQP Path Learn more

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

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

Subscribe Free
🎓 AQP Training