-
265 - Please explain "Claims relating to PRO endpoints must appear clearly within the context of the Health Canada approved indication." Does this mean that data from PROs must be in the PM, or just that the PM must address the outcome being assessed (e.g. "Drug X treats condition Y, and the pain from condition Y", for the PRO of pain reduction).
• Jennifer Carroll -
213 - Dear PAAB, I am curious about creating unbranded educational material around Subsequent Entry Biologics. We know that there are potentially a lot of issues that SEBs can have considering the nature of the manufacturing process. Is it acceptable to educate physicians on the challenges, risks, and non-identical nature of SEBs vs. orignial product, using review and 'expert opinion' articles in an unbranded piece? Alternatively, if we had a study that was done that showed these issues would we be able to use that? Or is it, if Health Canada has approved it then we can't say anything to infer challenges and risks? Many thanks.
• Jennifer Carroll -
191 - I understand that a Canadian consensus guideline is an acceptable, authoritative source. Correct? If the consensus is published in a peer-reviewed journal, but it is not explicitly called a "guideline" in the title, is this acceptable? (E.g., "Canadian consensus on..." or "Canadian clinical guidance...")
• Jennifer Carroll -
131 - I have a question about the permissibility of the phrase "treatment-free" within the following context. If we are promoting a type of treatment with product X, where the patient takes product X for 2 weeks and then does not have to take the medication again until 50 weeks later (i.e. the following year), would we be allowed to say that the patient was treatment-free for those 50 weeks. Product X has a short half-life and is out of the patient's system within 24 hours so the patient would not be receiving treatment for those 50 weeks. Other treatments for the same disease are weekly or monthly, thus discussing the "treatment-free" portion of the treatment regimen is a point we would like to discuss with HCP and patients.
• Jennifer Carroll -
118 - Under what circumstances would it be acceptable to use a peer-reviewed, published study for a schedule F drug if that study uses a dosing regimen for the companion drug (always prescribed together but not subject of advertising, nor manufactured by the same company) that is inconsistent with the product monograph?
• Jennifer Carroll