AUTH/3442/12/20 - Complainant v GlaxoSmithKline

Alleged promotion to the public on LinkedIn

  • Received
    19 December 2020
  • Case number
    AUTH/3442/12/20
  • Applicable Code year
    2019
  • Completed
    02 September 2021
  • No breach Clause(s)
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal

Case Summary

A complainant who described him/herself as a concerned health professional complained about two LinkedIn posts by GlaxoSmithKline UK Limited.

The first post announced the start of a Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate a candidate vaccine that if successful could help protect babies against RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] from birth thanks to maternal immunisation. The post included a photograph of a senior executive alongside the quotation ‘Advancing our portfolio of RSV vaccine candidates based on robust available data is a major step towards GSK’s goal of reducing RSV-associated disease burden around the world’.

The second post referred to the start of a Phase 3 clinical trial with GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnology’s Covid-19 antibody treatment in hospitalised adults and invited readers to learn more about GlaxoSmithKline’s contributions and solutions to the pandemic. The post included a photograph of a senior executive alongside the quotation ‘With new infections and hospitalization rates reaching record highs, the world needs multiple options to help combat this pandemic. GSK is developing solutions to fight this virus, from prevention through treatment, to provide relief from COVID-related illness’.

The complainant alleged that the first post was clearly promoting GlaxoSmithKline’s new product to the public before it obtained a licence. With regard to the second LinkedIn post, the complainant stated that it seemed that GlaxoSmithKline promoting to the general public was not an isolated error, but an ongoing decision.

The detailed response from GlaxoSmithKline is given below.

The Panel noted GlaxoSmithKline’s submission that the LinkedIn account referred to in the complaint, was the GlaxoSmithKline corporate account which had over 2.5 million followers at the time of posting. GlaxoSmithKline noted that at the time of its response, the account had over 2.8 million followers including around 225000 from the UK.

In the Panel’s view, it was not necessarily unacceptable for a company to refer in general terms to its pipeline products or work it was doing in response to the current pandemic. However, language, context, location, layout, intended audience and overall impression were important factors.

The Panel noted that the RSV vaccine candidate referred to in the first LinkedIn post was not classified as a prescription only medicine when the LinkedIn post was made. On that very narrow technical point, the Panel ruled no breach of the Code as a prescription only medicine had not been promoted to the public.

The Panel noted GlaxoSmithKline’s submission that the LinkedIn post regarding the RSV candidate vaccine was an enhanced post, with a paid campaign, which formed part of the corporate communications strategy to enhance the corporate image and reputation of the company. The paid campaign was targeted to those 25 years old or more, with an interest in science, technology, investors, science news etc in an effort to convert them to followers. It thus appeared to the Panel that the post was not restricted to followers of GlaxoSmithKline’s corporate LinkedIn account.

The Panel noted GlaxoSmithKline’s submission that the post announced the start of a Phase 3 trial of a candidate RSV vaccine, which by its very nature, meant the product was some considerable time from licence. The post was made, at the very best, at least 3 years before the related product could become an approved medicine. The Panel further noted GlaxoSmithKline’s submission that the post contained no information related to efficacy and was clear that the candidate vaccine might not succeed as evidenced by the terms ‘if successful’ and ‘could help’.

The Panel queried if the quote from a senior GlaxoSmithKline executive, which appeared within the LinkedIn post at issue, ‘Advancing our portfolio of RSV vaccine candidates based on robust available data is a major step towards GSK’s goal of reducing RSV-associated disease burden around the world’ might be seen as a claim for all of the company’s candidate RSV vaccines including the one entering a Phase 3 trial as referred to within the post.

However, on balance, on the evidence available and noting its comments above, the Panel did not consider that the LinkedIn post at issue promoted one of GlaxoSmithKline’s unlicensed RSV candidate vaccines to the public as alleged and no breach of the Code was ruled.

With regard to the second post, the Panel noted GlaxoSmithKline’s submission that providing basic factual information about the launch of a Phase 3 trial of a possible antibody treatment did not promote that potential treatment prior to licence, but simply informed the public that work was ongoing and that some progress was being made in the fight against the pandemic. GlaxoSmithKline submitted that the tone was factual and non-promotional, did not discuss efficacy results to date, the likelihood of success or the possible timelines.

The Panel further noted GlaxoSmithKline’s submission that the GSK/Vir antibodies were not currently licensed for use in any disease area, so were not able to be prescribed and were only available through registered clinical trials.

The Panel noted that GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnology’s Covid-19 antibody treatment was not classified as a prescription only medicine when the LinkedIn post was made. On that very narrow technical point, the Panel ruled no breach of the Code as a prescription only medicine had not been promoted to the public.

The Panel noted GlaxoSmithKline’s submission that the link within the post navigated to the GlaxoSmithKline Covid-19 response page titled ‘Our response to CoViD-19’, which was hosted on the GlaxoSmithKline corporate website and discussed GlaxoSmithKline’s collaborations with other companies relating to the pandemic. On the landing page after the introductory paragraphs, it described what adjuvants were and why they could be particularly useful in a pandemic to explain why GlaxoSmithKline were providing their adjuvant to a number of other companies which were developing vaccines. There was nothing on this particular page about the Covid-19 antibody mentioned in the post, but there was a tab labelled ‘Developing Covid-19 treatments’, within which there was information about antibody therapy and top line information about GlaxoSmithKline‘s collaborations and investigations, and how it was looking at its asset library in this therapy area; it did not mention any trial results but aimed to reassure that GlaxoSmithKline were contributing to the global effort. There was also a third tab relating to vaccines pricing and access. GlaxoSmithKline noted that also on the landing page was a link to a complete overview of the GlaxoSmithKline response to Covid 19.

On the evidence available, the Panel did not consider that the LinkedIn post meant that GlaxoSmithKline had promoted an unlicensed medicine to the public as alleged and therefore ruled no breach of the Code.

The Panel noted its comments and rulings above and consequently ruled no breach of Clause 2.