Leo v Galderma: ‘Dear Doctor’ letter for Silkis—claims on comparable efficacy, cosmetic acceptability and “cost effective” found misleading

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

Case numberAUTH/2019/7/07
PartiesLeo Pharma v Galderma (UK) Limited
MaterialSilkis “Dear Doctor” promotional letter to GPs (ref CAL/11/0307)
ProductsSilkis Ointment (calcitriol); Dovonex Ointment (calcipotriol)
Main issuesBroad comparative efficacy claim vs steroid; broad “cosmetic acceptability” superiority claim vs Dovonex; “cost effective option” claim based on acquisition cost only
Applicable Code year2006
Complaint received11 July 2007
Case completed5 September 2007
AppealNo appeal
Breach clausesClause 7.2 (x 2), Clause 7.4, Clause 7.5
SanctionsUndertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated

Download the full case report (PDF)


Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI
🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough
🎬
Video walkthrough — coming for members
Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.
Subscribe — from £299/yr
📋

What happened

  • Leo Pharma complained about a promotional “Dear Doctor” letter for Silkis Ointment (calcitriol) sent by Galderma (UK) Limited to GPs after Leo announced the impending discontinuation of Dovonex Ointment (calcipotriol).
  • The letter suggested Silkis “might be a suitable alternative” for psoriasis patients who preferred a topical vitamin D medicine.
  • Three key claims were challenged:
    • Silkis has demonstrated comparable efficacy to a steroid in mild to moderate psoriasis” (referenced to Camarasa et al (2003)).
    • Silkis ointment has demonstrated greater cosmetic acceptability when compared with Dovonex ointment” (referenced to Marty et al (2005)).
    • …Silkis can provide a cost effective option within the Vitamin D topical market…”.
⚖️

Outcome

  • The Panel ruled the claims were misleading and/or not substantiated.
  • Breaches were ruled for Clause 7.2 (x 2), Clause 7.4 and Clause 7.5.
  • No appeal.
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value
£249/year
Annual — save £99
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access

⭐ Business Intelligence Access

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export.

Request Access →
⭐ Flagship Programme

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

12 modules. 12 weeks. Final Signatory readiness. The industry standard for ABPI Code signatories — £995 + VAT.

Enrol — AQP Path Learn more

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free
🎓 AQP Training