This case was in relation to the claim that Trelegy was ‘A simple choice. One inhaler, easy to use and quick to teach’. made on the GlaxoSmithKline UK Limited’s website for health professionals.
The Panel noted that the claim at issue was made up of several elements and, in its view, the allegations set out by the complainant in relation to the overall claim were based on its concerns regarding each of the separate elements of the claim. GlaxoSmithKline had broken down each element in its response and the Panel therefore considered each element in turn and made its rulings in this regard.
The Panel ruled no breach of the following Clauses of the 2021 Code because:
• whilst it had some concerns regarding use of the claim ‘easy to use’, based on the complainant’s narrow allegation that the device was not easy to use because of the number of steps for correct use, elderly patients with dexterity challenges would find opening the cover a challenge, and it was not always possible for elderly individuals with hearing challenges to listen for a click, it did not consider that the complainant had established that, within the context of the entire claim and the webpage which included details of the critical errors for Ellipta versus the comparator devices from van der Palen et al, ‘easy to use’ was misleading or incapable of substantiation as alleged.
• based on the complainant’s narrow allegation that the Trelegy Ellipta was not ‘quick to teach’ considering the number of steps required, it did not consider that the complainant had established that, within the context of the entire claim and the webpage that referring to the inhaler as ‘quick to teach’ was misleading as alleged.
• it did not consider that the claim ‘A simple choice’ was misleading because it did not make any reference to why the inhaler was a simple choice as alleged.
• it did not consider that the complainant had established that referring to Trelegy Ellipta as ‘A simple choice’ within the context of the entire claim and webpage was misleading or that it could not be substantiated because it contained lactose and had a number of common side-effects. In the Panel’s view, it was clear that reference to ‘a simple choice’ was in relation to the device and its dosing.
No Breach of Clause 6.1
Requirement that claims/information/comparisons must not be misleading
No Breach of Clause 6.2
Requirement that claims/information/comparisons must be capable of substantiation
No Breach of Clause 5.1
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
This summary is not intended to be read in isolation.
For full details, please see the full case report below.