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. 417 - Hi Patrick, Can a company position its brand (from both a creative and messaging standpoint) on secondary outcomes in its PM? If not, then what code number does this contravene?
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.

417 - Hi Patrick, Can a company position its brand (from both a creative and messaging standpoint) on secondary outcomes in its PM? If not, then what code number does this contravene?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Claims & Support/References for Claims
1 Posts 1 Posters 301 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.
  • Jennifer CarrollJ Offline
    Jennifer CarrollJ Offline
    Jennifer Carroll
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    There are a multitude of statistical and qualitative reasons to generally tread lightly with secondary endpoints. Nonetheless, it is sometimes possible for a secondary endpoint to be emphasized as the key creative in an APS depending on factors relating to the study, the particular endpoint, and the TMA. It is not possible to list all potential scenarios in which this is acceptable and unacceptable. Seeking a written opinion from PAAB (see the fee schedule on our website) is likely a good starting point when attempting this to ensure that you are walking down a productive path. Some reasons I've encountered over the past few months for which it has not been acceptable to focus on the secondary endpoint from the PM include (PAAB s3):· The secondary endpoint was only accepted in the context of the primary endpoint (e.g. for clarity, to avoid over-selectivity, or because the primary endpoint was directionally different)· Emphasis on this particular secondary endpoint (rather to some other secondary endpoint) was overly-selective· The endpoint extends beyond the indication· the study is located somewhere in the PM other than the clinical trial section of the PM (e.g. in the pharmacology section of the PM)· The endpoint is particularly sensitive to type I error and this wasn’t controlled in some way· There is also an important limitation in the TMA relating to this particular endpoint· There is no statistical analysis done with this endpoint.

    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