Afin de soutenir la demande croissante, nous avons modifé la section Demandez au CCPP et l'avons rendu plus facile d'utilisation. Vous pouvez désormais sélectioner la catégorie qui vous interesse dans le menu déroulant et voir les questions qui ont déjà été posées et répondues. Vous pouvez également faire une recherche parmis les questions déjà soumises au CCPP depuis les débuts.
Questions et réponses les plus récentes
Can you please explain why a claim of "Guidelines recommend..." can only contain the generic drug name, vs. brand name? Would it make a difference if the Guidelines themselves link generic and brand names?
Because guideline recommendations tend to specify the non-proprietary name. Some have expressed a desire not to be perceived as endorsing a specific brand. It does NOT make a difference if the guideline links the proprietary and non-proprietary names. However, the answer does change if the guideline recommendation itself only cites the brand name.
A product receives an updated indication, removing some clinical use restrictions (patient type, duration, etc). Can the old and new indications be presented together in an APS? Can an APS make mention of the lifted clinical use restrictions (if they are now omitted from the TMA)? Thank you.
You can describe the change in TMA in an accurate fashion. This may include a side-by-side presentation of the prior indication copy compared with the current content. Clarity is of the essence when doing so. All provisions in the code apply but you must be cautious not to accord clinical significance to the change (e.g. by attributing a reason to the change, by presenting possible consequences of the change, etc.)
Can NBRx data be used to make market share claims, if the same principles governing TRx data were applied? Example: Arbace is the #1 dispensed hypertensive among new patients. If so, would the NBRx data need to be directionally consistent with the TRx data (ie. if Arbace is in fact not the #1 dispensed among ALL patients)?
For “statistically significant” you need a statistically significant p-value or CI. On occasion, multiplicity adjustments are required to control for type I error.
For “clinically significant” you’d need the study to have predefined a threshold difference that is deemed to be “clinically significant”. The message “significant” on it’s own is ambiguous, “statistically” or “clinically” should be added as supported.
Hi, My question pertains to the construction of the required "Relevant warnings and precautions" section include in a fair balance section. Specifically, can the incidence of the events, for example "serious adverse events of neoplasm' or "QTc prolongation", have incidence or other clarifying information included in the fair balance section for clarification purposes so a HCP more clearly understands the context of the warnings and precautions?
Given the nature of the statement, we can consider review papers as support.
Hi PAAB: We have a new product in our pipeline that is currently undergoing approval process with Health Canada (pre-NOC). We want to do a targeted campaign to HCPs around disease state, We will not be mentioning any clinical data or clinical options. This online piece will be centered around the disease and very general information regarding disease state. Do we need PAAB approval or ASC approval alone is sufficient?
PAAB approval is required as you’ll be targeting HCPs.
PAAB will review the piece under s7.5 of the PAAB Code of Advertising Acceptance. An important part of our review will be determination of whether the piece alludes to a product. This is important as Promotion of a drug prior to market authorization is not permitted (Section 9(1) of the Act, Section C.08.002 of the Regulations). Note that HCPs have specialized knowledge of the pertinent therapeutic area. It is therefore possible that messaging be deemed not to allude to a product when disseminated to the general public and yet be deemed to allude to a product when targeted to HCPs.
For the consumer tactics, both PAAB and ASC provide an advisory review.
Hi - I understand that as per Section 6.6iv, an email informing HCPs about 'updated provincial formulary criteria for Drug X' would be considered PAAB exempt (if there were no linkage to therapeutic or promotional claims). Could you provide clarification on whether including a website link to the full formulary list of a province would still be considered exempt? Note that this formulary list contains criteria specific to Drug X.
PAAB code section 6.6.ii states “A message comprised only of the words “now on provincial formulary” (or equivalent) in a manner which is not linked to a therapeutic message in any way”. In addition, the PAAB advisory document “Provincial Formulary Coverage Statements” further states “APS comprised only of “Drug X: Now on OBD formulary” not linked in any way to additional product messages or disease/corporate messages”. As such, a direct link to the coverage criteria for drug X would require review.
We are in the process of developing a tool that will highlight a product's reimbursement program. It would state "reimbursement navigation assistance available for Product X" and would include a tear pad with necessary information to be completed by an HCP. This tear sheet would not be provided to patients, but would be faxed directly to the manufacturer. In addition, this tool would not include any product/promotional claims, only the name of the product would be mentioned. Given that messages limited to name and price are exempt from PAAB review, would "reimbursement navigation" also be considered exempt? If not, is there any way to make this tool exempt?
A message of “navigation assistance” or “reimbursement navigation” is a service message. The service message would require review in the context of the piece and the brand. This piece would not be considered exempt.
Our question is related to question no 70 which was: "The PAAB codes allows side by side comparison of non-clinical data from 2 or monographs. Would it be acceptable to use a comparative table of non-clinical data (ie. pharmacokinetics) from a review article? Extract from 5.10.2: [Information from two or more Product Monographs on products' properties7 and on instructions for use or use limitations8 may be acceptable as side-by-side presentations and in text form.]". PAAB answer: "The PAAB Code (s3.1.1) does not regard "review articles" as high level evidence to support a drug specific claim because they reflect an opinion/ summary from an author rather than actual findings of a primary study. This also applies to non-clinical claims. Our question: Does PAAB regard "Guidelines" (such as CGA guidelines) as high and appropriate level of evidence for a side-by-side comparison of use limitations? Thanks
The Review Tips and Cases document “Marketing benefit claims: What are they and what level of support do they require” states that pharmacokinetic and dynamic claims should not be linked to clinical claims and should be supported by the TMA. It also states that consensus guidelines should be used for place in therapy claims. Furthermore, code section 5.10.2 states that side-by-side limitation of use presentations may be acceptable when referenced to the respective Product Monographs. The PAAB does not review guidelines as support for side-by-side comparison of product use limitations (e.g. indications, contraindications, warnings, precautions…).