Forum

Hey @GMC This copy would be reviewed in the context of the entirety of the piece. The context of the message “dispensed as written” will matter. See also the PAAB advisory on Advertising messages referring to "no sub".

Hey @mhouzer The difference between the Standard 4-day initial review of RMTs and submitting as an ARO-4 is that the subsequent revision turnaround time will be an expedited 2-days rather than the standard 3-days. If you anticipate needing a few rounds of back and forth, this can be a good option to get to your final letter more quickly.

Good Morning @HollyMed Pooled data is not acceptable even if part of a pre-planned long-term extension study.

Good Morning @Supriya We assume that you are referring to a patient targeted APS. As a patient would not have a prescription for all the products, this would contravene the direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) regulations (Section C.01.044 of the Food and Drugs Act Regulations) to create a link to the therapeutic use (i.e. indication could not be included) for products they are not prescribed. While the three base levels of fair balance apply only to HCP-targeted APS, a weblink to the Terms of Market Authorization (TMA) links the therapeutic use, a violation of the DTCA regulations.

Hi @dmauri This would not apply to comparative data. As per the first sentence “statistical analysis to support inclusion of comparative therapeutic data” is required. The comment also states that the AEs have to be aligned. Your original question appears to suggest that you are looking to speak to AEs which are not presented in the TMA and therefore would be difficult to demonstrate alignment.

Apologies for the delay @SMurcar. We were in the process of upgrading the forum over the last two days. As the piece would be moving from two sided to one sided this would change the flow. The content in the top section may set context for the bottom section depending on the formatting and flow. We would suggest submitting for a minor update (if the resizing is intended to replace the small postcard altogether) so that we can assess the revised visual flow to ensure all aspects of the Code remain met. The addition of the QR code as described above could be considered as a minor update. Please see the Submission Guidelines for more information

Hey @cscholes We understand that LinkedIn is an ungated platform and open to consumers. As such, the site is subject to consumer regulations similar to PF question 458 and is highly restricted for prescription advertising. Targeting to HCPs within the open platform may not guarantee that consumers won’t see the ad as well. Please also see this linked PF question and our Guidance on Gating Mechanisms for Healthcare Professional Targeted Digital Assets and subsequent clarification document Gating Mechanisms for HCP Digital Assets (designed in collaboration with Health Canada) regarding HCP validation. How HCPs are identified and verified, the nature of the targeting and how well it can limit the audience to only validated HCPs would be information that is required as part of the review process. PAAB will provide advice and direction based on the Health Canada DTC regulations, the PAAB code principles and the information that the sponsor can provide for the restriction of the intended HCP audience within this consumer space.

Hey @mimi77 This sounds like a file specific question which should be addressed with the review through the eFiles ticket system. If the question is with respect to “attestation letters” in general term, there are many different reasons an attestation letter might be required in a file. The person signing the attestation letter can vary depending on the copy. Most commonly attestation letters are signed by a representative of the manufacturer’s medical or regulatory team. It may be possible for it to be a representative from the global team. There are a number of Q&As which address attestations which may also support your understanding.

Hello @tk2022 It appears that you are asking for an exempt review over the forum. Please note that this is not the intention of the forum. From a search it appears that you are taking the term “simple sample” from Question 47 or 58. If this is the case, please ask the question under the relevant Q&A in the future to help maintain the usability and clarity of the Forum. Q&A Solicit product samples should provide sufficient information along with the referenced questions within that response, to assess “simple”. When unsure, please be invited to submit for an opinion.

Hi @caitlinbyrne When an APS has more than one audience, all regulations for each audience apply. The tool would be reviewed to ensure it meets patient and HCP regulations. Generally the patient regulations are more stringent so we recommend strongly considering them when creating the tool.

Hi @hollymed Please see this PAAB Forum Q&A

Hi @chagali-toney-0 Per the Guidance on Advertising for Drugs with Notice of Compliance with Conditions NOCc “3. For NOC/c product advertising, studies and/or data which are not presented in the Terms of Market Authorization will not be accepted.” Please note that this does not state “verbatim”. However, it should be interpreted to mean that no data from outside of the PM can be presented.

@jennifer-carroll Great, thank you!

Hello @mimi77 Promotion of a patient support program through the presentation of the program name and logo does not fall under the exemption criteria and links the brand logo to promotion of a company service (PSP logo) (Code section 7.5). Additionally, program names often have implications for the brand such as alluding to therapeutic use. Exemption is limited to brand name and logo in a context not linked to therapeutic or promotional messages per Code section 1.5.

Hello @lora_nolan This is a review question. Per the Community Guidelines (see top right corner), this does not meet the use conditions for the Forum. Please address review questions through the appropriate channels by submitting a ticket for a call with the Reviewer through eFiles.

Hello @gmc Hard to say whether this is even acceptable without looking at the study, but as a general question, we can state that this would require highest level fair balance. It is an implied claim of efficacy which would likely require quantification from the study (i.e., presentation of data). If it was stopped due to safety concerns, that would also prompt inclusion of that information and render it subject to highest level fair balance. With respect to “what other data is required for it’s inclusion?”, this is a review specific question. Please submit for an opinion as there are a number of factors that would need to be considered.

Good Morning @ebailey All files do not need to come back together. You can update the parent file and then apply across all the children files. In general, the parent file should be the one being resubmitted; however we understand that there may be practical reasons to resubmit a child file to get it to approval prior to proceeding with the rest of the children and the parent. When this is the case, please outline this for the reviewer. You may also reach out with an email to admin to confirm that the reviewers agree prior to resubmission.