2025 cases
Summary of Committee meetings held in 2025
Case No. 304/07/25 complaint against Zoetis UK Ltd.
Case No. 304/07/25 was brought against Zoetis UK Ltd. regarding promotional activities for Solensia®, a monoclonal antibody therapy for managing feline osteoarthritis pain. The Committee considered six separate allegations under the NOAH Code of Practice for the Promotion of Animal Medicines, with the hearings held on the 12 and 19 September 2025.
The Items of complaint considered by the Committee were as follows:
Item 1: Allegation that a pre-prescription leaflet produced by Zoetis promoted Solensia®, a prescription-only medicine (POM-V) directly to animal owners, potentially breaching several clauses of the NOAH Code of Practice.
Item 2: Allegation that a Zoetis advertorial claimed Solensia® is first-line therapy for osteoarthritis in cats, which the complainant argued could be misleading and in breach of the Code’s requirements regarding accuracy and clarity in promotions.
Item 3: Allegation that the content of a Zoetis press release and a post-prescription leaflet which claimed Solensia has a “positive safety profile”, were alleged to be not balanced and misleading in its communication to both veterinary professionals and animal owners.
Item 4: Allegation that various Zoetis promotional materials (including a Technical Bulletin, Printable Checklist, Online Quiz, Video and Article) present an incomplete diagnostic protocol for feline osteoarthritis.
Item 5: Allegation that three promotional materials (Printable Checklist, Online Quiz and Video) include an oversimplified diagnostic tool that could lead to overdiagnosis of osteoarthritis in cats.
Item 6: Allegation that Zoetis was not reporting suspected lack of efficacy adverse events in relation to Solensia®, as required for pharmacovigilance purposes.
Zoetis presented their response to the Committee:
Zoetis responded to each of the six complaint items.
For Item 1, they clarified that the Solensia® pre-prescription leaflet was an educational resource for animal owners, providing a balanced overview of feline osteoarthritis. The leaflet included only a discreet mention of Solensia® and its active ingredient, Frunevetmab, without promotional claims, and adhered to NOAH Code Clause 4.2. Zoetis asserted it did not mislead or disparage veterinary professionals, and information presented was within Code and Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) guidance on educational information for the general public.
Regarding Item 2, Zoetis stated that the advertorial accurately positioned Solensia® as a first-line therapy for feline osteoarthritis in line with American Animal Hospital Association and WSAVA Guidelines, without implying it was the only treatment option or superiority.
For Item 3, Zoetis distinguished between materials for professionals and owners, explaining that the phrase “positive safety profile” reflected the robust regulatory process provided by the VMD authorisation after rigorous scientific assessment. They argued their communications were balanced, accurate, and suitable for the intended audience, adhering to Code requirements.
Addressing Items 4 and 5, Zoetis maintained that their Technical Bulletin, Printable Checklist, Online Quiz, Video and Article aimed to raise awareness of feline osteoarthritis and encourage veterinary consultation. These materials did not mention or promote Solensia®, were educational, and compliant with the Code and VMD Guidance.
In response to Item 6, Zoetis categorically denied suppressing reports of lack of efficacy for Solensia®. They outlined robust pharmacovigilance practices, that are a legal requirement under the Veterinary Medicines Regulations and they referred to regular Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) audits of their PV processes, reaffirming their commitment to accurate, timely adverse event reporting and compliance with regulatory obligations.
Committee decision:
The Committee reviewed the complaint and Zoetis’ response and came to the following conclusions.
For Item 1, it was determined that the pre-prescription leaflet constituted promotion but was compliant with Clause 4.2 of the NOAH Code due to its educational nature and the non-prominent mention of Solensia®. The Committee found no breach of Clauses 4.3 or 4.4 regarding accuracy or any disparagement of veterinary professionals.
With regard to Item 2, the Committee concluded that the advertorial was a promotional piece but not misleading, as it accurately stated that Solensia® is included as a first-line therapy in both the American Animal Hospital Association and WSAVA Guidelines. There was no evidence of disparagement or inaccuracy.
For Item 3, both the press release and the post-prescription leaflet were treated as promotional materials. The Committee found the press release to be balanced and compliant, but determined that the post-prescription leaflet contained language aimed at pet owners that was a minor breach of Clause 4.3 (ii), as it lacked sufficient additional context, such as reference to potential adverse events that could arise. The Committee did not in any way question or challenge the independent regulatory assessment regarding the safety of the product. It was the lack of sufficient context in the post prescription that led to the conclusion of a breach for lack of balance in the information provided. No breach was found in relation to claims of exaggeration relating to the use of the term “safe”, and Clause 14.1 was deemed not applicable.
Regarding Items 4 and 5, the Committee decided that the Technical Bulletin, Printable Checklist, Online Quiz, Video, and Article were not promotional according to the Code of Practice, since they did not mention Solensia® or promote its use. These materials were instead regarded as tools to raise disease awareness rather than promote a specific product, and therefore Clauses 4.3, 4.4 and 14.1 did not apply, with no breaches of the Code identified by the Committee.
Finally, for Item 6, alleging inadequacies in the Zoetis pharmacovigilance system and alleging a failure by Zoetis staff to report suspected lack of efficacy events, the Committee found no evidence to support these claims. It confirmed that Zoetis adhered to statutory pharmacovigilance obligations, including regular audits by the VMD, and found no breach of Clause 4.3 (xi) or Clause 11.6.
Following these findings, Zoetis were issued with the following undertaking:
Case No. 304/07/25
- We acknowledge and accept the decision of the Committee in Case 304/07/25 as set out in the NOAH Code of Practice Committee Decision Notice provided by email on 2 October 2025.
- We undertake that in promotions of Solensia® in post-prescription leaflets or material given to cat owners, to not use the statement ‘a positive safety profile’ if the justification for that is solely that a Marketing Authorisation has been granted for Solensia®.
- We hereby give an assurance that we will take all possible steps to avoid a breach of the above undertaking.