ArradiCAN - Page 1- Review
-
1.- Copy deck, page 1: We question the targeting of hematologists and colorectal cancer as misleading and off-indication. We also question lung cancer and respirologists as targeting.
2.- Copy deck, page 1: Please clarify whether these websites will be gated to HCPs. We have reviewed this piece with the understanding that it is intended for HCP use. We question the use of MedNEWS as it is ungated. (s4.4.3)
3.- Copy deck, page 1: The tagline has absolute efficacy claims and quality of life claims. Please remove or rephrase. (s2.6.1) We would suggest “ArradiCAN is a new option for your patients” or “You CAN give your patients another option”.
4.- Copy deck, page 1: Tagline: any claims supported by study data must be stated in the past tense.
5.- Copy deck, page 1: “Tagline to appear under product logo (ArradiCAN can…)” does not appear in the layout in the indicated place. It is also an incomplete and absolute claim. Please clarify.
6.- Copy deck, page 1: Claim must be in past tense as it comes from study results.
7.- Copy deck, page 1: Study data must be balanced with appropriate study design, please include the study design in a footnote alongside the date.
8.- Copydeck, page 1: We question the callout “statistically significant improvement of..’ as misleading. There is no statistical significance associated with median PFS. Please rephrase this and remove it from a callout. Please also remove the 9.8 month, 6.5 month and 3.3 month call outs as this may mislead the viewer into seeing significance where there is none.
9.- Copydeck, page 1: Please move the Hazard ratio and P-value up so that it is directly beneath the PFS claim.