CASE/1029/07/26 - Complainant v Neuraxpharm

COMPLAINANT v NEURAXPHARM

Allegations about the black triangle and certification of a Briumvi promotional website

This case was in relation to Neuraxpharm’s promotional website for Briumvi (ublituximab), which was intended for UK health professionals. The complainant alleged that, although Briumvi was a medicine subject to additional monitoring, the triangle next to the first mention of the product name (in the banner at the top of the webpage) was white rather than black, as required by Clause 12.7.

The complainant also referred to a Briumvi patient booklet that had been removed from the website around May 2026. Given all pages of the website showed a date of preparation of October 2025, the complainant alleged that the website had not been certified appropriately under Clause 8.1, following the removal of the patient booklet.

The complainant was contactable and described themselves as a health professional.

The case preparation manager considered that the complaint met the criteria for the abridged complaints procedure because:

• it was likely in their view that there had been a breach of the Code,

• it appeared that the central facts would not be disputed, and

• the clauses raised were on the PMCPA’s approved list for use of the abridged procedure.

Neuraxpharm confirmed that the version of the website that went live included a white triangle. It explained that a third-party contractor had failed to check the final live version against the electronically certified version, as required by Neuraxpharm’s SOP. Neuraxpharm submitted that this was an isolated contractor failure and that the contractor and agency had been reminded of their Code and contractual obligations. Neuraxpharm accepted breaches of Clauses 5.2 and 12.7.

In relation to certification of the website after the removal of the patient booklet, Neuraxpharm explained that its employee (who had failed to follow clear company policy) did not realise the website needed re-certifying after the change. The individual had been retrained on the relevant SOP and the Code. Neuraxpharm accepted breaches of Clauses 5.2 and 8.1.

Neuraxpharm provided the required undertaking and assurance, and confirmed that its investigation into these two matters had not identified a systemic compliance issue.

The outcome under the 2024 Code of Practice was:

COMPLAINANT v NEURAXPHARM

Allegations about the black triangle and certification of a Briumvi promotional website

This case was in relation to Neuraxpharm’s promotional website for Briumvi (ublituximab), which was intended for UK health professionals. The complainant alleged that, although Briumvi was a medicine subject to additional monitoring, the triangle next to the first mention of the product name (in the banner at the top of the webpage) was white rather than black, as required by Clause 12.7.

The complainant also referred to a Briumvi patient booklet that had been removed from the website around May 2026. Given all pages of the website showed a date of preparation of October 2025, the complainant alleged that the website had not been certified appropriately under Clause 8.1, following the removal of the patient booklet.

The complainant was contactable and described themselves as a health professional.

The case preparation manager considered that the complaint met the criteria for the abridged complaints procedure because:

• it was likely in their view that there had been a breach of the Code,
• it appeared that the central facts would not be disputed, and
• the clauses raised were on the PMCPA’s approved list for use of the abridged procedure.

Neuraxpharm confirmed that the version of the website that went live included a white triangle. It explained that a third-party contractor had failed to check the final live version against the electronically certified version, as required by Neuraxpharm’s SOP. Neuraxpharm submitted that this was an isolated contractor failure and that the contractor and agency had been reminded of their Code and contractual obligations. Neuraxpharm accepted breaches of Clauses 5.2 and 12.7.

In relation to certification of the website after the removal of the patient booklet, Neuraxpharm explained that its employee (who had failed to follow clear company policy) did not realise the website needed re-certifying after the change. The individual had been retrained on the relevant SOP and the Code. Neuraxpharm accepted breaches of Clauses 5.2 and 8.1.

Neuraxpharm provided the required undertaking and assurance, and confirmed that its investigation into these two matters had not identified a systemic compliance issue.

The outcome under the 2024 Code of Practice was: