Hello @username

No. Code section 3.1.1 states: Clinical or therapeutic claims must be based on published, peer-reviewed, controlled, and well-designed studies with clinical and statistical significance clearly indicated. Review articles, pooled data, meta-analysis, post-hoc analysis, and observational studies are generally regarded as not being evidence to support claims in drug advertising. Data included in the TMA may be acceptable.

@jennifer-carroll thank you Jennifer!

@jennifer-carroll Thank you this was very helpful

@jennifer-carroll Thank you for your input, Jennifer! We'll take this all into consideration.

@natbourre

All materials should be reviewed and approved by the manufacturer’s medical department prior to submission to PAAB as per the efile submission form and Code section 1.6B3. However, this does not negate the requirement to annotate the references to facilitate PAAB review of the APS against advertising regulations. Please see our new guidance document for the submission process for directions on referencing.

Hey @hannah

Please see Q&A 338 listed above.

Good morning @gmc

PAAB has issued advisories and guidance regarding formulary claims since 2010. In addition, we have received feedback from formularies regarding the presentation of formulary coverage in APS since then. The 2010 eFile may not reflect the more recent information and should not be used as precedent. We suggest submitting for an opinion should there be more specific questions regarding the proposed project.

Hi @abyscat,
In general, if a specific coverage criteria is broader then the product’s indication or terms of market authorization, it is considered off-label and not acceptable in advertising. We suggest calling PAAB or submitting an opinion if there is specific formulary criteria that may require further clarification.

Hey @charlton

No, a patient case is not required to be on a patient who actually participated in the PM trial.

Hey @kshulist

This sounds like a specific question about a specific file and issue. It would be best addressed by discussing the specifics of the request with the reviewer of the file, in the context of the actual claim and indication, particularly since there are additional considerations for exclusivity claims.

As a general principle, claims with the phrase “…indicated for…” require the verbatim indication, whereas non-verbatim/truncated indication claims may appear as “…indicated in…”. A “first and only” claim like that described, would appear to be an indication comparison and therefore require the copy “indicated in/for”.

Good Morning @username

To set the context of the response, please see Q&A 500 . If the copy falls outside of the scope of the PAAB code, we can provide an advisory response on content. To support instructions for a demo device, we could consider a letter from medical confirming that the instructions are accurate per how they would counsel an HCP should they contact medical for directions on use. No copy should contradict the product labelling or package insert and clinical conclusions should not be inferred.

Hey @username

In the context of a study design, with no additional weight that would emphasize the endpoint, it would likely be acceptable to mention the endpoint.

Hey @tmcm

The nature of the dosing modifications and the manner in which they are presented, will impact the level of fair balance. A dosing tool with cautionary dosing modifications may be subject to the lowest level fair balance. If the modifications are positioned as a product benefit it will likely require highest level fair balance.

Hello @tmcm

I’m going to assume that you are asking if this is acceptable to do. Key things to consider are that the formulary criteria should be a complete presentation of the coverage criteria (s.2.1), so a summary presentation would have to be considered complete on the face of the ad (the link to the full coverage would not be sufficient). Additionally, highlighting specific patient characteristics may be viewed as placing emphasis on those characteristics, which may require support. Similar concerns may arise with highlighting specific prior drug treatments. We would need to consider the specifics of the drug and the coverage criteria to determine if the summary is sufficient. Q&A 258 provides additional information as well as the advisory document Provincial Formulary Coverage Statements

Good morning @georgian21

When there are Canadian consensus guidelines, HCPs should be directed to those. As per the document “What constitutes current medical opinion & practice”, US or European guidelines can be used as additional support to Canadian guidelines when they are consistent. If there is copy that goes beyond the recommendations of the Canadian guidelines, or contains products not yet approved in Canada, we would question the inclusion.

Good Morning @username

The overall context of a piece is always part of the consideration. Acceptable copy should be factual and complete. The copy “Back in Canada” on it’s own would not be clear or complete. It’s unclear why it was not in Canada? Similar questions would arise with “Available again to Canadians”. This copy completed with “after a voluntary recall” may be considered.

Hello @healthymind

This question cannot be answered as a general question. We would need to assess the TMA content, claim and data within the published study. We suggest submitting as an opinion for a formal review.

From a general question perspective, we refer you to the PAAB Guidance on Patient Reported Outcomes which outlines specific considerations for PRO, including specific domains/items comprising the PRO instrument.

Happy Friday @username

The PAAB interprets “pivotal trial” to mean that the study was important to this specific product getting the indication (not necessarily important to the therapeutic area overall).

Hello @username

Code section 1.4c states “The Code applies to Advertising/Promotion Systems generated by advertisers or their agents, wherein the advertiser’s product or a competitor’s product is cited by either trade name or non-proprietary name. This includes any identifiable branding element.”. As such, the dosing for products which should be used in combination with the sponsors product, are required to be aligned with their respective TMA. If the products label does not align (i.e. not indicated in the specific population of reference), the sponsor should limit the copy to directing the HCP or patient to the respective labelling of the products which can be used in combination.

We could provide a more specific assessment in the context of an official opinion submission, providing consideration to all factors that pertain to your particular case (e.g., precise wording in monograph, planned level of specificity of provided dosing info, particular references intended to be cited, and so on).