Forum

It’s Friday @Agency @Manufacturer and PAAB wants to send you into the weekend with some exciting news: The NEW Creative Imagery in Advertising Advisory is NOW live! After months of insightful and collaborative discussions, we’re excited to finally announce PAAB’s new advisory on the use of creative imagery in pharmaceutical advertising. Industry has asked for clarity, and we hope this document provides that clarity you’ve been waiting for, or at the very least, provides a stronger framework to evaluate creative ideas with your teams. Note that this is not the finish line. This is a starting point to continue to grow and evolve with the ever-changing landscape, to meet the needs of healthcare professionals and patients. We’d like to extend our gratitude to all the industry members of the Creative Committee who took time to share challenges, discuss the advertising landscape, listen to the regulatory concerns and work collaboratively with PAAB to refine the creative imagery discussion. Special thanks to Mike Spelay (bMod), Andy Leeson (Wellworth and Best), and Konstantine Polanski (Point05 Health), for driving the revisions from the first draft document and creating meaningful examples. Thank you to the bMod team for generating creatives to help capture the principles outlined throughout the document. We look forward to implementing these new approaches with you and continuing the conversations.

Hey @dlew Coverage claims may be considered in HCP APS. Patient information should not contain promotional claims but formulary information may be considered. Please see our patient information guidance. HCP claims about “cost” should be factual and complete. A claim of “at zero additional cost for most patients” would be a hanging comparison and would need to clearly state versus what and be supportable across all public and private payers. Remember that formulary bodies have requested that messaging around coverage be limited to statements of coverage and not promotional messaging around “savings”. Additionally, messaging around cost should be clear about what costs (e.g. drug acquisition costs, mark-up, dispensing fee, etc.). Private coverage claims can be supported by independent third party data from an established company who assess’ market access.

Hey @mhouzer The difference between the Standard 4-day initial review of RMTs and submitting as an ARO-4 is that the subsequent revision turnaround time will be an expedited 2-days rather than the standard 3-days. If you anticipate needing a few rounds of back and forth, this can be a good option to get to your final letter more quickly.

Happy Almost Friday @Manufacturer and @Agency Your PAAB Q3 Forum Review is now live! Some of the things that you might want to check out: AI assisted submission process - Call for volunteers ARO expansion Client Messenger Service Creative Imagery Document Posted Coming soon: RWE formatting update, new service offerings, and more... As always, thoughts and feedback are welcome below . Thank you PAAB

Lets start with a quick registration video.

This one is tough to answer in a general forum since there are a lot of considerations. First and foremost, the indication is the limitations for the Terms of Market Authorization and therefore sets the context of messaging within advertising. Code section 2.10 applies regardless of perception that terminology has changed. Next, this is a great opportunity for PAAB to remind clients that we do accept endpoints and terminology not listed in the TMA. What we look for is “consistency with the TMA”. Let’s look at a few examples of where it would not be acceptable. If the “new terminology” appears to expand the scope of the indication into a broader population than what is outlined in the TMA. If the “current medical practices” contradict the TMA, such as “use first line” when the TMA states “after failure on class Y”. The studies based on “newer disease terminology” result in the patient populations or outcomes being broader than those outlined in the Product Monograph. If a more specific assessment would provide more value, we invite you to submit for an opinion. You may also reach out to admin to set up a short billable consult meeting that would allow discussion of the specific example (more details to come about this service)

Hey @dmauri Great question. As long as the study publication does not contain information suggesting dosing practices inconsistent with Canadian labelling, the manufacturer’s Medical/Regulatory Affairs department can confirm that the dosing in the jurisdiction where the study was conducted is the same as it is in Canada. When it comes to “SoC”, per 1.7 of the Guidance on Real-World Evidence/Data, remember that pooled comparisons are not acceptable which would render the second half of the question moot. However, if you are referring to SoC in a single-arm study (per Advisory: RWE Single-Arm Studies of Previously Treated Patients), we would look to ensure that the overwhelming majority of patients were on a product available in Canada/indicated in the same population in Canada. Regarding "SoC", please note the guidance's remarks on representing the marketplace versus exclusions by design. An opinion can be a great mechanism to get specific guidance on an individual study as it allows for assessment of the study design, therapeutic area, and indicated product(s).

Hello @Username Is the product dual schedule or only “ethical”? Is it for the treatment of a schedule A disease? One would need to consider schedule A and dual scheduling to establish which DTC regs are applicable (and consequently the degree to which they differ from HCP regs). If we assume the product is not dual scheduled and its use is not on schedule A, it is likely that the same imagery and heading can be used. However, there are instances where that is not the case because the HCP looks at the ad from a different vantage point as the general public (I.e. the same message can convey different/additional meaning for the HCP). Also, the HCP piece may contain different content that impacts the context in which the image and heading is interpreted. One way to make sure the same image can be used is to submit an opinion to PAAB for the DTC along with the HCP piece.