GlaxoSmithKline plc t/a GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
Brentford
Middlesex
TW8 9GS
Date: 17 June 2009
Media: Television
Sector: Health and beauty
Sector: Health and beauty
Number of complaints: 2
Agency: Ogilvy Group Holdings Ltd
Complaint Ref: 81819
Complaint Ref: 81819
Ad
A TV ad, for Zovirax cold sore treatment. The voice-over stated “Zovirax antiviral cold sore treatment, nothing works faster”.
Issue
Two viewers challenged whether the claim “nothing works faster” could be substantiated, because they believed there was a light-emitting device that worked faster.
BCAP TV Code
Response
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare (GSK) said when they provided substantiation for the claim, they were unaware of the light-emitting device and therefore had not tested Zovirax against the device. They said they had undertaken a review of the available literature and identified only one published study for the light-emitting device, which concluded that the device had a cold sore healing time of 6.3 days. GSK said the largest clinical trials carried out on Zovirax had found a mean cold sore duration of 4.3 and 4.7 days. They said the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) approved duration for use for Zovirax was four days, with an ability to continue use for up to 10 days if required; they argued that that provided an assurance that Zovirax promoted rapid healing of cold sores.
GSK said the light-emitting device’s website indicated that they had carried out tests against an antiviral cream. They said, in light of the two complaints, they would like to review that evidence and proposed to write to the company to request access to that comparison data. They said the evidence for the light-emitting device consisted of small trials which they believed were unlikely to be robust. However, they said, should they find the data supported the complainants’ objection, they would amend their advertising accordingly.
Clearcast said the MHRA’s Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) for Zovirax suggested that treatment should be continued for four days while the evidence GSK referred to gave a healing time of at least 6.3 days for the light-emitting device.
Clearcast said the website for the light-emitting device referred to a trial which purported to show that its healing time was 4.3 days, but no details of that trial were given. Clearcast believed, even if that study was accepted, 4.3 days was longer than the minimum four days allowed to Zovirax by its SPC. Clearcast said they welcomed GSK’s proposal to review that trial but believed the facts available did not support the contention that the top parity claim made by Zovirax was incorrect.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted the SPC for Zovirax stated “Treatment should be continued for at least 4 days. If healing has not occurred, treatment may be continued for up to 10 days”. We considered that that did not show the normal time for healing with Zovirax was four days. We also noted the SPC referred to evidence on Zovirax which showed “time from start of treatment to healing was 4.6 days using Zovirax Cold Sore Cream”.
We considered that viewers would infer from the ad that Zovirax worked at least as quickly as all other treatments at successfully treating cold sores. We noted GSK had agreed that they had not compared their product to the light-emitting device but that they believed the evidence for the light-emitting device was unlikely to be robust. We acknowledged that GSK had not intended to compare their product with the light-emitting device but considered that, because at the time the ad was broadcast GSK did not hold comparative evidence to show that Zovirax worked at least as quickly as all other treatments at successfully treating cold sores, the claim “nothing works faster” had not been substantiated. We noted GSK intended to undertake further studies and acknowledged that, should those studies substantiate that Zovirax worked at least as quickly as the light-emitting device, it might be possible that they could use the claim “nothing works faster” in future ads.
The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence) and 5.4.6 (Comparative advertising).
Action
The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.
This page was posted on June 03, 2014.
