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.
662 - Hi Patrick, I have the following question: When using the terms "proven efficacy" in a headline in the context of what the product is indicated for, why do we need high level fair balance? For example, "Product X has proven efficacy in the treatment of Arthritis." If the product has received an indication for the treatment of arthritis, it has been shown to be effective - otherwise it would not have received such an indication. So, this headline is simply a factual statement, as opposed to a clinical claim. Thanks in advance for your clarification.
-
Although the indication is the evidentiary basis for a claim such as “Proven efficacy”, the statements, “Indicated in condition X” and “Proven efficacy in condition X”, are not equivalent. The message “Indicated in condition X” is a legal statement setting the parameters around marketing and clinical use. As such, lowest level fair balance is sufficient. The statement “Proven efficacy in condition X” is not a simple legal statement; it is a therapeutic claim. In HCP advertising, APS containing therapeutic claims (e.g. efficacy, effectiveness, safety, tolerability) are required to disclose the highest level of fair balance.
