Forum Update: Supporting Community-Led Discussion
The forum was created as a space for shared learning and peer support, and as the community grows, we want to lean more fully into that purpose.
Going forward, PAAB will be taking a more listening-first role in forum discussions. Rather than responding immediately to every question, we’ll be encouraging members to engage with one another, share experiences, and help build collective understanding. PAAB will continue to monitor conversations and will step in to:
- Correct any misunderstandings
- Provide guidance when questions remain unanswered after a few days
- Support discussions where official clarification is needed
Our goal is to foster a collaborative, trusted community where knowledge is shared and strengthened by everyone’s contributions.
Thank you for being part of the conversation.
Unbranded patient piece highlighting certain comorbidities
-
Hi there,
Could we make an unbranded patient piece with an overall focus on Disease A (e.g., what it is, what causes it, all available management options [both pharma and non-pharma]) that includes a section on co-morbidities associated with Disease A? In this section, could we highlight (and by "highlight" I mean "provide more information on") one of the more common co-morbidities without highlighting the others?
Thank you!
-
Hi there,
Could we make an unbranded patient piece with an overall focus on Disease A (e.g., what it is, what causes it, all available management options [both pharma and non-pharma]) that includes a section on co-morbidities associated with Disease A? In this section, could we highlight (and by "highlight" I mean "provide more information on") one of the more common co-morbidities without highlighting the others?
Thank you!
Hi @kshulist
Assuming that the highlighting of select co-morbidities did not favour one class of products over another and that the co-morbidities were not tied back to any off-label therapeutic implications for products, it could theoretically be done in the context described.
-
Hi @kshulist
Assuming that the highlighting of select co-morbidities did not favour one class of products over another and that the co-morbidities were not tied back to any off-label therapeutic implications for products, it could theoretically be done in the context described.
@jennifer-carroll Hi Jen,
Thanks so much for your answer! I just wanted to clarify what you meant when you said "that the co-morbidities were not tied back to any off-label therapeutic implications for products". What does that mean for including certain drug classes in the "pharma treatment section" of our piece? (Some drugs within a class may be indicated for the co-morbidity and some may not - is it still okay to mention the whole class in our pharma treatments section?)
-
@jennifer-carroll Hi Jen,
Thanks so much for your answer! I just wanted to clarify what you meant when you said "that the co-morbidities were not tied back to any off-label therapeutic implications for products". What does that mean for including certain drug classes in the "pharma treatment section" of our piece? (Some drugs within a class may be indicated for the co-morbidity and some may not - is it still okay to mention the whole class in our pharma treatments section?)
Hi @kshulist
In general, you want to apply the following litmus test:
Would a user be able to identify the sponsor?
Would competitors be equally as likely to sponsor the distribution of the piece?You can assume that if you are treating a condition that has three drug classes which treat the condition, and one of them has an indication which includes a comorbidity that the other two do not, focusing on that comorbidity, would not be acceptable.
-
Hi @kshulist
In general, you want to apply the following litmus test:
Would a user be able to identify the sponsor?
Would competitors be equally as likely to sponsor the distribution of the piece?You can assume that if you are treating a condition that has three drug classes which treat the condition, and one of them has an indication which includes a comorbidity that the other two do not, focusing on that comorbidity, would not be acceptable.
@jennifer-carroll Thanks for clarifying! I understand now
