The MHRA's policy is to publish a report of the outcome of investigations into complaints about advertising for licensed medicines, to inform stakeholders and the public. It will supplement the actions already taken to alert health professionals and the public to misleading advertising such as the publication of a corrective statement where a serious risk to public health is perceived. All complaints received from 1 December 2003 will be published here.
We also publish reports of actions taken in cases where advertisements have been identified through MHRA monitoring of published advertising.
The publication of a summary reports is intended to provide guidance to advertisers on how the Regulations are interpreted and also act as an information resource for advertisers, consumers and the media on decision making and actions taken by the MHRA in advertising casework. This has a number of potential benefits including improved compliance with the Regulations.
-
We received a complaint from a member of the public in April 2010 who was concerned that the Bayer website exaggerated the impact and prevalence of testosterone deficiency syndrome and promoted the use of testosterone replacement therapy to the public. We upheld the complaint.
-
We received a complaint from a healthcare professional about a prescribing guidance document for Iscador. The complainant alleged that the guidance, sponsored by Weleda, was misleading as it implied that Iscador had been assessed for efficacy when it has a Product Licence of Right (PLR) licence. We upheld the complaint.
-
We received a complaint in June about the Celgene Limited annual sales meeting which was held in a continental European location. It was alleged that NHS employees would be attending and the overseas location meant that the arrangements would not comply with the legal requirements for hospitality. We did not uphold the complaint.
-
We received a complaint in July 2010 about ChloraPrep highlighting conerns that the leaflet did not include prescribing information and implied that the product was endorsed by the MHRA by stating that it was, 'MHRA approved'. We upheld the complaint.
-
We received a complaint from a member of the public in May 2010 about an advertisement for Dettol Liquid Antiseptic Disinfectant which appeared on Reckitt Benckiser’s Dettol website. We upheld the complaint.
-
We received a complaint from a healthcare professional in December 2009 about an advertisment produced by Esperanza Peptide Ltd for consumers, which was published in the MSRC magazine. The complainant was concerned that the advertisement promoted an unlicensed homeopathic medicine. We upheld the complaint.
-
List of clinics that have amended their websites following complaints received since 1 January 2010 to ensure that prescription only medicines are not promoted to the public.
-
We received a complaint from a healthcare professional in May about an advertisment for Tredaptive produced by MSD, which appeared in Clinical Medicine. The complainant was concerned that the advertisment was untruthful. We did not uphold the complaint.
-
We recieved a complaint from Bioforce in March 2010 about a website produced by Herbfacts for consumers. The complainant was concerned that the website promoted Schwabe Pharma products for use outside of their registration. We upheld the complaint.
-
We received a complaint in March 2010 about a Neurology Pharmaceutical Survey relating to the use of botulinum toxin injections for the treatment of primary headache or migraine disseminated by Allergan Ltd. We upheld the complaint.