Hey @HollyMed Yes, per the copy "In the scenario described above where guidelines lower in the aforementioned hierarchy are being used over the available US guidelines, evidence must be provided to support that these guidelines are a true reflection of Canadian practice". Note that there may be instances where we ask for more information about US guidelines. This is extremely rare and the rationale is disclosed during the review process. If you find yourself in this rare instance, please reach out to the reviewer for clarification.

@Jennifer_CM Example 3 appears to be about the product monograph web link destination. The original question above is about linking middle level fair balance to highest level fair balance. Linking middle level fair balance to highest requires that it’s within the same tool or directly attached. A print journal ad is not the same medium as a URL link (web based) and therefore would not be acceptable.

Hello @dmauri PAAB will generally consider alternate cut offs from the TMA if it does not appear to be minimizing the risks of the product. The alternate cut-offs should not remove pertinent ADRs/safety information that would otherwise be important to the product and within the therapeutic landscape. The TMA should also not have other safety considerations that would preclude the higher percentage cutoff.

Good Morning @Constance PAAB would need additional information to make the assessment of the claim proposed above. There are many considerations outside of just the source such as, does it suggest equivalence between products on a per unit basis and what is the intent of the per unit comparison. Given these unknowns, it is difficult to provide a definitive answer in a general space. We suggest submitting the copy for review.

Hi @dmauri This would not apply to comparative data. As per the first sentence “statistical analysis to support inclusion of comparative therapeutic data” is required. The comment also states that the AEs have to be aligned. Your original question appears to suggest that you are looking to speak to AEs which are not presented in the TMA and therefore would be difficult to demonstrate alignment.

Hey @mimi77 This sounds like a file specific question which should be addressed with the review through the eFiles ticket system. If the question is with respect to “attestation letters” in general term, there are many different reasons an attestation letter might be required in a file. The person signing the attestation letter can vary depending on the copy. Most commonly attestation letters are signed by a representative of the manufacturer’s medical or regulatory team. It may be possible for it to be a representative from the global team. There are a number of Q&As which address attestations which may also support your understanding.

Hi @hollymed Please see this PAAB Forum Q&A

Hi @chagali-toney-0 Per the Guidance on Advertising for Drugs with Notice of Compliance with Conditions NOCc “3. For NOC/c product advertising, studies and/or data which are not presented in the Terms of Market Authorization will not be accepted.” Please note that this does not state “verbatim”. However, it should be interpreted to mean that no data from outside of the PM can be presented.

Hello @gmc Hard to say whether this is even acceptable without looking at the study, but as a general question, we can state that this would require highest level fair balance. It is an implied claim of efficacy which would likely require quantification from the study (i.e., presentation of data). If it was stopped due to safety concerns, that would also prompt inclusion of that information and render it subject to highest level fair balance. With respect to “what other data is required for it’s inclusion?”, this is a review specific question. Please submit for an opinion as there are a number of factors that would need to be considered.

Good Morning @jennifer_cm The letter should be from the national body to support that it is widely used by Canadian health professionals. If you would like confirmation prior to building out a piece, the PAAB opinion service can be used to assess the guidelines.

Good morning @jdilly11 Apologies for missing this question earlier. It is possible. There are a number of things to consider, and the following should not be considered an exhaustive list. The mechanism of disease (MoD) must be supported by an authoritative source. There should be no inference that a particular part of the mechanism is a more impactful target than another. There should be no explicit or implicit outcomes of targeting the MoD. There should be complete separation from the drug MOA and nothing that is inconsistent with or contradicts the TMA would be considered. These are high-level guiding principles. All aspects of the Code should be considered when presenting MoD.

@jennifer-thomson Please see PAAB Code section 3.4, and 4.2.2 as well as PAAB resource PAAB Guidance Documents for Market Share Claims in Advertising and Retention and Market Share Claims. The reference to "data" within these resources is to the data itself. An attestation letter alone is insufficient. If a claim of #1 within a province can be supported by high quality data from a recognized source with acceptable methodological practices to reach such a conclusion, we can consider the claim. The piece would be required to have restricted distribution to the province mentioned.

Hello @alee Provision 8 of the Guidance Document for Claims Based on Kaplan Meier Analysis does not apply to retrospective studies. The Guidance on Real-World Evidence/Data is intended for RWE/D and does not apply to (Kaplan-Meier analyses in) randomized, controlled trials. The use of multivariate analyses to identify prognostic factors associated with overall survival pertaining to a drug product may provide insights for future investigation but it also creates implications for subgroups with specific patient/disease characteristics that would not be acceptable in the absence of pre-planned evaluation of these subgroups (s. 1.4 of the Guidance on Real-World Evidence/Data for RWE/D and s. 3.1.1 of the PAAB Code for randomized, controlled trials).

Good Afternoon @mimi77 Please see PAAB Q&A 173, 467, 729.

Hey @maryssa A search of the PAAB resources at paab.ca should turn up “What constitutes current medical opinion”. A search of “guidelines” on the forum should turn up 593, 743, 77, among other results. HTH.

Hey @tk2022 It sounds like this might be a specific question about a specific case. We’d suggest submitting for review as the forum is guiding principles. Each case is assessed based on it’s merits in the context of all relevant documents. The answer provided below is with the caveat that it is a general response. In general, an RWE study is not excluded from advertising based on a pre-planned evaluation of a subgroup which would be within the limitations of the indication. “Consistent with the TMA” with respect to patient population states “1.1.2 Patient population: The APS presentation must be derived from analysis of patients that fall within the indicated population and are aligned with any relevant contraindications from the TMA. In instances where an overall study population exceeds the product’s indication, it may be possible to present data from a pre-planned patient subset that reflects the indicated patient population or relevant subset thereof.”

Hello @tk2022 The feature of being phase 3b/4 does not in and of itself disqualify a study from either RWE or study duration.

@jennifer-carroll thank you so much!

Hello @jdilly11 PAAB code section 3.1.1 requires that clinical claims are based on published, peer-reviewed, controlled and well-designed studies with clinical and statistical significance clearly indicated. Unpublished data would not be considered sufficient. If a study has been accepted for publication and completed the peer-review process (i.e. final manuscript is approved and awaiting official publication), PAAB can accept a letter from the editor confirming the future publication of the manuscript as presented in the submission.