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. Clarity on "in the treatment of..." vs. "for the treatment of..."
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.

Clarity on "in the treatment of..." vs. "for the treatment of..."

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Claims & Support/References for Claims
2 Posts 2 Posters 474 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.
  • K Offline
    K Offline
    kshulist
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    Hi there,

    I'm wondering if I could get some clarity on using the terminology of "in the treatment of..." vs. "for the treatment of...". Our indication says "for the treatment of" and we've included a first-and-only claim that has the full indication nested. So, it's something like "The first and only ______ ... for the treatment of...(the whole indication)". The indication is not quite verbatim, it has an (on-label) adjective added (e.g., "moderate") that wasn't present at that point in the PM indication (though it is mentioned later in the PM indication in the same context).

    We've gotten some feedback from PAAB saying that we need to change "for" to "in" and we are unsure where exactly the problem lies. Is the problem the added adjective ("moderate") which renders the indication portion of the claim not completely verbatim, or is the problem that we cannot nest the full indication (with "for") within other claims (i.e., "The first and only _____" is the problem).

    Thanks in advance for any help!

    Jennifer CarrollJ 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • K kshulist

      Hi there,

      I'm wondering if I could get some clarity on using the terminology of "in the treatment of..." vs. "for the treatment of...". Our indication says "for the treatment of" and we've included a first-and-only claim that has the full indication nested. So, it's something like "The first and only ______ ... for the treatment of...(the whole indication)". The indication is not quite verbatim, it has an (on-label) adjective added (e.g., "moderate") that wasn't present at that point in the PM indication (though it is mentioned later in the PM indication in the same context).

      We've gotten some feedback from PAAB saying that we need to change "for" to "in" and we are unsure where exactly the problem lies. Is the problem the added adjective ("moderate") which renders the indication portion of the claim not completely verbatim, or is the problem that we cannot nest the full indication (with "for") within other claims (i.e., "The first and only _____" is the problem).

      Thanks in advance for any help!

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

      Hey @kshulist

      This sounds like a specific question about a specific file and issue. It would be best addressed by discussing the specifics of the request with the reviewer of the file, in the context of the actual claim and indication, particularly since there are additional considerations for exclusivity claims.

      As a general principle, claims with the phrase “…indicated for…” require the verbatim indication, whereas non-verbatim/truncated indication claims may appear as “…indicated in…”. A “first and only” claim like that described, would appear to be an indication comparison and therefore require the copy “indicated in/for”.

      1 Reply Last reply
      1
      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