Skip to content
Brand Logo

Forum
The responses, guidance, and advisories provided by the Pharmaceutical Advertising Advisory Board (PAAB), including but not limited to those available through the PAAB Forum, the PAAB website, and any PAAB correspondences, are specifically intended to assist individuals navigating the PAAB preclearance system. Repurposing or reproducing this content without written consent from the PAAB Commissioner is strictly prohibited. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, use in machine learning or AI models.

  • Announcements regarding our community

    5 5
    5 Topics
    5 Posts
    Jennifer CarrollJ
    Hello @manufacturer @agency Process flow is a business decision. PAAB has adjusted its requirements for Medical/Regulatory sign-off to respect this fact. What's changing? PAAB will no longer require med/reg review to occur prior to initial PAAB submission. Upon submitting, if you have opted not to complete Medical/Regulatory review prior to PAAB review, please click "Not Yet" on the submission form. If Medical/Regulatory review was completed, you will continue to have the option to confirm this and provide the Manufacturer Medical/Regulatory contact. Click here to more about why, new form requirements, and what this means for the review process. Question? Post below and we'll get back to you. Thanks PAAB

  • A place to talk about whatever you want

    7 20
    7 Topics
    20 Posts
    Jennifer CarrollJ
    Hello @Jennifer-Thomson It sounds like this would fall under a PILOT: Administrative Guideline for the Review of Pre-NOC Advertising Submissions. We’d get the file to “no further comments” pending review of the layout (video) post NOC. Please reach out to admin to discuss the specifics so that we can ensure we’re understanding the request and facilitating the best possible pathway to approval.

  • Got a question? Ask away!

    1 2
    1 Topics
    2 Posts
    Jennifer CarrollJ
    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.

  • Blog posts from individual members

    1 1
    1 Topics
    1 Posts
    Jennifer CarrollJ
    Good Afternoon @Manufacturer and @Agency It's crazy to say but we're now just past halfway through 2025! The PAAB Quarterly Tag and CEI Reports have been updated to contain data for Q2. See the Tag report here and the CEI report here. The Forum Quarterly Review for Q2 has also been posted here. If there's more you'd like to know in Q3, let us know in the comments below. Have a wonderful rest of the summer. Thank you PAAB

  • Have questions about how to use the forum, set up your account, functionality etc.? Ask them here and we'll help you out.

    3 3
    3 Topics
    3 Posts
    D
    Lets start with a quick registration video.

  • Do you have questions about particular sections of the PAAB code? Do you have insights on how sections of the code be improved? Do you want to share insights about how related standards are addressed in other jurisdictions? Post here.

    83 193
    83 Topics
    193 Posts
    Jennifer CarrollJ
    Hey @ALee The same approach of “where applicable” should be applied to the RAMQ coverage as well. The intent of the inclusion is to ensure that the user is clear about the criteria for coverage as outlined by RAMQ. If the definitions and notes clarify or set the limitations/context for interpretation, they should be included.

  • 128 227
    128 Topics
    227 Posts
    Jennifer CarrollJ
    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).

  • 1k 2k
    1k Topics
    2k Posts
    Jennifer CarrollJ
    Hi @Danielle Section 1.1.4 Endpoints/ Outcomes of the Guidance on Real-World Evidence states “Endpoints/Outcomes must be “consistent with” (though not necessarily “the same as”) those in the TMA. Regardless of whether the evidentiary basis for the presentation is RWE/RWD or an RCT, endpoints are not generally limited to those explicitly included within the TMA. Though the approach for RWE/RWD mirrors that for RCTs in this respect, the following examples are intended to clarify questions received during the consultation process.” You can review the examples in the linked document. Assessment of “consistent with” is made in the context of the combination of the endpoint, TMA and the therapeutic area. The submitter should provide authoritative support within the submission, to support that the endpoint is consistent or similar to those in the TMA and that it is a recognized endpoint within the therapeutic area.