Hey @mimi77
While we don’t provide reviews of the Forum, in general terms the claim should reflect the nature of the update. From our understanding of the description, this would be authorization in a new population (pediatrics) and not a net new indication. As such, claims should reflect “Now authorized for use in pediatric patients for x” or something similar.
Remote Workshop 2020 series
Private
Posts
-
New pediatric indication claims -
PAAB Code - Post hoc analysisHello @msargeant
Apologies for not seeing this question sooner. Per 3.1.1, post-hoc analysis are generally not considered acceptable evidence at this time. The circumstance in which post-hoc analyses would be considered acceptable is outlined in the statement that follows that copy which states “Data included in the TMA may be acceptable”. HTH.
-
Guideline terminology: Canadian, US/North American, InternationalHey @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.
-
Guideline terminology: Canadian, US/North American, International -
Middle level fair balance linking to high-level fair balance@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. -
577 - Hi - I understand that as per Section 6.6iv, an email informing HCPs about 'updated provincial formulary criteria for Drug X' would be considered PAAB exempt (if there were no linkage to therapeutic or promotional claims). Could you provide clarification on whether including a website link to the full formulary list of a province would still be considered exempt? Note that this formulary list contains criteria specific to Drug X.Hey @ALee
“Indirect link to a general formulary/Provincial homepage” is the same as “full formulary list of a province”. As per the response above, this would not be considered exempt. -
577 - Hi - I understand that as per Section 6.6iv, an email informing HCPs about 'updated provincial formulary criteria for Drug X' would be considered PAAB exempt (if there were no linkage to therapeutic or promotional claims). Could you provide clarification on whether including a website link to the full formulary list of a province would still be considered exempt? Note that this formulary list contains criteria specific to Drug X.As a follow-up to Q&A 577, we understand inclusion of the written statement “See Formulary listing for more information” would still be exempt for a simple “Now on Formulary” Email. Can you please advise if an indirect link to a general Formulary/Provincial homepage would maintain this exemption? The Sponsor has done their diligence in not directly linking to the therapeutic use, and the onus would be on the HCP to seek out the product information (if desired) through the Formulary.
-
Guidance on Patient Reported OutcomesHi tk2022
Please see our more recent “Guidance on Real World Evidence/Data” for criteria and direction on the presentation of RWE in advertising to health care professionals. Please also see our "Guidance on the use of the Attention Icon" regarding unblinded data.
