← Case Library  /  AUTH/2428/8/11
AUTH/2428/8/11 Scientific Information Not Upheld 2008

AstraZeneca

Clauses: 11.1
🔒
Full video requires subscription
Subscribe from £199/year to access the full expert walkthrough, podcast and MCQs.
Sign in to subscribe
🎧
Podcast Episode 🔒 Subscribe to listen to this case as a podcast
Unlock

📋 Case Summary

What happened Two complaints from members of the public challenged a full-page Onglyza (saxagliptin) advertorial placed in the Health Service Journal (HSJ) (published 4 August 2011). Concerns were that HSJ is read by NHS managers (and could be read by the public) and that the advert’s technical/clinical content should have been limited to medical/clinical publications. The PMCPA asked the companies to consider Clauses 11.1 and 22.1. The companies said HSJ was subscription-only, not promoted to the public, and read by health professionals and appropriate administrative staff; the advert was payer-oriented and certified specifically for HSJ. The Panel accepted HSJ was a specialist professional title (so not public advertising), but initially considered the advert was not tailored to HSJ’s main readership (mostly management/administrative) and therefore breached Clause 11.1. AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb appealed; the Appeal Board found the advert sufficiently tailored to a signifi

📌 Clauses Breached

11.1

🔒
Subscribe for full compliance analysis, podcast & MCQs
From £199/year — instant access to all case studies.
View plans
← More Scientific Information cases ← All case studies