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. Can you tie a #1 dispensed claim to an indication?
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.

Can you tie a #1 dispensed claim to an indication?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Claims & Support/References for Claims
3 Posts 2 Posters 357 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

    Based on the PAAB guidance on market share claims (www.paab.ca/Retention_and_market_share_claims.pdf), it sounds like you must have directly observable data to tie a #1 dispensed claim to an indication (disease had to be entered into database). I just want to double check something:

    Let's say your product is a ProteinX inhibitor and is only indicated in DiseaseA. When you pull all the IQVIA data for all the ProteinX inhibitors indicated in Canada for DiseaseA, you see that your product has >5% market share (but you do not have access to the disease for each prescription dispensed). In the above guidance, it says that if any of the competitors have multiple indications, you cannot tie the claim to the indication. This is where I'm confused, if your product has market share and is only indicated in DiseaseA, then it even if the competitors have multiple indications, if anything this would dilute their market share, right? It wouldn't increase it?

    Could you please help me understand why this isn't allowed? (tying market share to indication when only one indication, in the absence of directly observable disease data)

    Thank you!

    Jennifer CarrollJ 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • K kshulist

      Based on the PAAB guidance on market share claims (www.paab.ca/Retention_and_market_share_claims.pdf), it sounds like you must have directly observable data to tie a #1 dispensed claim to an indication (disease had to be entered into database). I just want to double check something:

      Let's say your product is a ProteinX inhibitor and is only indicated in DiseaseA. When you pull all the IQVIA data for all the ProteinX inhibitors indicated in Canada for DiseaseA, you see that your product has >5% market share (but you do not have access to the disease for each prescription dispensed). In the above guidance, it says that if any of the competitors have multiple indications, you cannot tie the claim to the indication. This is where I'm confused, if your product has market share and is only indicated in DiseaseA, then it even if the competitors have multiple indications, if anything this would dilute their market share, right? It wouldn't increase it?

      Could you please help me understand why this isn't allowed? (tying market share to indication when only one indication, in the absence of directly observable disease data)

      Thank you!

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

      @kshulist

      Per FAQ 2 of the PAAB guidance cited in your query, as there is no direct observable data, off-label use cannot be ruled out even with a single indication. There is insufficient data to truly account for the clinical use/indication for each compared product. Without such data, the comparisons could be potentially misleading and thus not acceptable.

      K 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • Jennifer CarrollJ Jennifer Carroll

        @kshulist

        Per FAQ 2 of the PAAB guidance cited in your query, as there is no direct observable data, off-label use cannot be ruled out even with a single indication. There is insufficient data to truly account for the clinical use/indication for each compared product. Without such data, the comparisons could be potentially misleading and thus not acceptable.

        K Offline
        K Offline
        kshulist
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        @jennifer-carroll
        Okay I understand now, so saying "#1 dispensed ProteinX inhibitor for DiseaseA" would be misleading if 90% of those dispensings were really for the off-label treatment of DiseaseB? Yep, that makes sense, thank you!

        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