Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

Forum

  1. Home
  2. PAAB Q&A
  3. Claims & Support/References for Claims
  4. Identifying revisions to coverage criteria, indications, or fair balance in an APS
PAAB Notice
The responses, guidance, and advisories provided by the Pharmaceutical Advertising Advisory Board (PAAB), including but not limited to those available through the PAAB Forum, the PAAB website, and any PAAB correspondences, are specifically intended to assist individuals navigating the PAAB preclearance system. Repurposing or reproducing this content without written consent from the PAAB Commissioner is strictly prohibited. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, use in machine learning or AI models.

Identifying revisions to coverage criteria, indications, or fair balance in an APS

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Claims & Support/References for Claims
3 Posts 2 Posters 262 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • D Offline
    D Offline
    dmauri
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    Is it acceptable to visually identify revisions to coverage criteria (e.g., removed criteria bullets, revised duration of approval numbers, etc.) with elements such as strikethroughs, arrows, highlights, bolding, etc.? Could such revisions also be called out in text? (e.g., "there is no longer a requirement for previous systemic treatment").

    Presenting updated coverage criteria without calling out the specific changes from the previous criteria could leave our audience confused as to what has changed.

    Similarly, could similar visual elements or text callouts be used to identify changes to a product's indications or warnings?

    Jennifer CarrollJ 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • D dmauri

      Is it acceptable to visually identify revisions to coverage criteria (e.g., removed criteria bullets, revised duration of approval numbers, etc.) with elements such as strikethroughs, arrows, highlights, bolding, etc.? Could such revisions also be called out in text? (e.g., "there is no longer a requirement for previous systemic treatment").

      Presenting updated coverage criteria without calling out the specific changes from the previous criteria could leave our audience confused as to what has changed.

      Similarly, could similar visual elements or text callouts be used to identify changes to a product's indications or warnings?

      Jennifer CarrollJ Offline
      Jennifer CarrollJ Offline
      Jennifer Carroll
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      Hello @dmauri

      In general, there is an ability to identify the changes in a neutral manner that does not suggest significance or embellish the change in any way. Occasions may arise where it is not acceptable to do this such as when the change highlights an off-label use or criteria that would not meet the requirements of the Code or in the Advisory – Provincial Formulary Coverage Statements

      For indications and warnings, you should note however, that content which cannot be included in advertising due to F&DA s9.1, cannot be salvaged merely by placing a strikethrough over it. For example, inappropriate uses of annotations that come to mind include using strikethrough annotations to extend the duration of time that no longer approved uses/populations are included in advertising, or using strikethrough annotations to suggest that a risk is now completely null. Additionally, similar to formulary changes, copy should not be added which would embellish the significance of the change.

      D 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • Jennifer CarrollJ Jennifer Carroll

        Hello @dmauri

        In general, there is an ability to identify the changes in a neutral manner that does not suggest significance or embellish the change in any way. Occasions may arise where it is not acceptable to do this such as when the change highlights an off-label use or criteria that would not meet the requirements of the Code or in the Advisory – Provincial Formulary Coverage Statements

        For indications and warnings, you should note however, that content which cannot be included in advertising due to F&DA s9.1, cannot be salvaged merely by placing a strikethrough over it. For example, inappropriate uses of annotations that come to mind include using strikethrough annotations to extend the duration of time that no longer approved uses/populations are included in advertising, or using strikethrough annotations to suggest that a risk is now completely null. Additionally, similar to formulary changes, copy should not be added which would embellish the significance of the change.

        D Offline
        D Offline
        dmauri
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        @jennifer-carroll Thank you for clarifying!

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        Reply
        • Reply as topic
        Log in to reply
        • Oldest to Newest
        • Newest to Oldest
        • Most Votes


        • Login

        • Don't have an account? Register

        • Login or register to search.
        • First post
          Last post
        0
        • Categories
        • Recent
        • Tags
        • Popular
        • Users
        • Groups