ProStrakan osteoporosis “audit service”: inconsistent service description and unclear sponsorship wording (AUTH/2175/10/08)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2175/10/08
Parties	Anonymous General Practitioner v ProStrakan
Product	Adcal-D3 (calcium and vitamin D3 supplement)
Activity	Osteoporosis audit service / calcium and vitamin D supplementation clinical review service delivered by an independent provider
Complaint received	16 October 2008
Case completed	23 December 2008
Applicable Code year	2008
Breach clauses	Clause 9.1 (x2)
No breach clauses	Clauses 2, 9.10, 18.1, 18.4
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated

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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable GP complained about an “osteoporosis audit service”/“Osteoporosis Project” offered to his practice by ProStrakan (marketer of Adcal-D3, a calcium and vitamin D3 supplement).
The GP alleged the service felt designed to drive prescribing of ProStrakan’s product, including claims that the pharmacist implied Adcal-D3 was expected, that only Adcal-D3 was recommended, and that patient records had already been updated.
The service was delivered by an independent company using pharmacists; the contract stated: “The service is not linked to the use of any particular product”.
The Panel noted the documentation used inconsistent names for the service (eg, “Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation Clinical Review Protocol” vs “Osteoporosis Therapy Review Service”), which was confusing and likely contributed to misunderstanding.
The Panel also scrutinised a table listing calcium/vitamin D3 supplements: Adcal-D3 had flavours listed (“Chewable Tab Lemon Tutti Frutti”) while other products did not, which the Panel considered not fair-handed; ProStrakan’s explanation about registered names was found misleading when checked against SPCs.
Template patient letters included “Provided as a service to medicine by ProStrakan Ltd” and were to be typed on practice letterhead; the Panel considered the sponsorship declaration might not be carried over into final letters, but there was no evidence it had been omitted.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 9.1 (x2) for failure to maintain high standards in relation to the documents provided (including inconsistent description of the service and lack of fair-handedness in listing product options).
No breach of Clause 9.10 (no evidence that letters were sent without the declaration of sponsorship, despite the Panel’s concern).
No breach of Clauses 18.1 and 18.4 (Panel was satisfied the service enhanced patient care and was not an inducement to prescribe; prescribing choice lay with the doctor).
No breach of Clause 2 (reserved for particular censure; Panel did not apply it here).

🔒

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

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access