@jennifer-carroll has there been any further developments on the Creative Imagery Committee? I searched the PAAB web site but did not find anything further on this topic.

@jennifer-carroll Thank you for the information.

@costeap Absolutely we can add guidance on why tags were deemed invalid. Great suggestion. We’ll add it in to Q3. Thank you for the feedback.

Hello @dmauri

PAAB practice has been to accept communications from formulary bodies to the manufacturer which confirm listing and criteria in the absence of published coverage criteria. In the absence of these letters, we have accepted an attestation from the sponsor that confirms the EAP listing and that the government/ministry has no objection to the marketing of this criteria. The client can proceed with submitting pieces which communicate the listing and criteria.

@costeap whoops. That was an error. Great catch. We had 2969 new submissions in Q1. I'll update accordingly.

Q3 and Q4 tag data have now been updated. Take a look at the quarterly trends across 2021 in the PAAB Tag Report 2021.

Good Afternoon @aboucouvalas

It’s important to note that the naming convention mentioned above is to allow for pieces to be attached to a standardized email template and therefore will not have the indication and appropriate level of fair balance associated with it. If you wish to send an email with three different patient information tools for one brand across three indications, it may be worth considering a branded email. At this point, the email could contain the appropriate level of fair balance and allow for the identification of the therapeutic area within the naming convention. Note that should you take this route, the name of all attached tools should be included in the email submission.