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.
696 - We have a study we would like to use to support a claim in a new tool. In this study “DRUG B” is used as an add-on to our product, whereas in our product monograph our indication is stated as an add-on to “DRUG B”. Would this be an issue?
-
The first step in assessing the acceptability of the study is to determine if it is consistent with the TMA. We would consider consistency with the indication/patient population studied, dosing, etc. As the indication specifies that the product is an add-on to drug B and it is not used in that fashion in the study, the study design does not appear to be consistent with the TMA. As this appears to be a specific question about a specific product and study, we suggest submitting the published study in an opinion file where we can assess the study design and consistency with TMA.
