TGA Evidence Guidelines

Evidence guidelines
Guidelines on the evidence required to support

indications for listed complementary medicines
Version 3.0, uary 2019

Therapeutic Goods Administration
Copyright
© Commonwealth of Australia 2019
This work is copyright. You may reproduce the whole or part of this work in unaltered form for your own personal use or, if
you are part of an organisation, for internal use within your organisation, but only if you or your organisation do not use the
reproduction for any commercial purpose and retain this copyright notice and all disclaimer notices as part of that
reproduction. Apart from rights to use as permitted by the Copyright Act 1968 or allowed by this copyright notice, all other
rights are reserved and you are not allowed to reproduce the whole or any part of this work in any way (electronic or
otherwise) without first being given specific written permission from the Commonwealth to do so. Requests and inquiries
concerning reproduction and rights are to be sent to the TGA Copyright Officer, Therapeutic Goods Administration, PO Box
100, Woden ACT 2606 or emailed to <[email protected]>.
Guidelines on the evidence required to support indications for listed complementary medicines Page 2 of 69
V3.0 uary 2019
Contents
Guidelines on the evidence required to support indications
for listed complementary medicines _______________ 5
Who are these guidelines for? ________________________________________________ 5
Scope of guidelines _____________________________________________________________ 5
Part A: Evidence to support indications for listed
complementary medicines _______________________ 7
Indications for listed medicines _____________________________________________ 7
Evidence to support indications for listed medicines ___________________ 11
Traditional indications: what evidence do you need to
support your traditional indication? ______________ 15
Evidence of traditional use __________________________________________________ 15
Multi-traditional paradigm medicines _____________________________________ 16
What are the sources of evidence of traditional use? ___________________ 16
Assessing the relevance of evidence to your indication_________________ 19
What indication sub-type does your evidence of traditional use support?
____________________________________________________________________________________ 20
Choosing or deciding upon your traditional indication _________________ 21
How to compile a summary of the evidence to support your traditional
indication _______________________________________________________________________ 22
Scientific indications: what evidence do you need to
support your scientific indication? _______________ 23
What are the sources of scientific evidence?______________________________ 23
Assessing your evidence _____________________________________________________ 29
Balanced view of your scientific evidence _________________________________ 31
What indication sub-type does your scientific evidence support? ____ 32
Choosing or deciding upon your scientific indication ___________________ 33
How to compile a summary of the evidence to support your scientific
indication _______________________________________________________________________ 33
Cross-evidence base medicine: What evidence do you
need to support your medicine with a combination of
traditional and scientific indications? _____________ 34
Cross-evidence base ingredient (scientific and traditional) ___________ 34
Cross-evidence based medicine _____________________________________________ 35
V3.0 uary 2019
How to compile a summary of the evidence to support your indication for

your cross-evidence based medicine_______________________________________ 35
Part B: Further technical guidance _______________ 36
Equivalency of ingredient, preparation, dosage and dosage form between
the evidence and your medicine ____________________________________________ 36
Scientific studies_______________________________________________________________ 36
Indications relating to biomarkers _________________________________________ 44
Indications relating to weight loss _________________________________________ 45
Indications relating to nutrient supplementation _______________________ 47
Appendix 1: How to use evidence package checklists 49
Checklist 1: Evidence package cover page_________________________________ 50
Checklist 2: Evidence search strategy ______________________________________ 52
Checklist 3: Evidence of traditional use filter _____________________________ 54
Checklist 4 Scientific evidence filter _______________________________________ 57
Checklist 5: Evidence of traditional use summary _______________________ 63
Checklist 6: Evidence summary for scientific indications ______________ 64
Appendix 2: Journal impact factors ______________ 65
Limitations of the IF ___________________________________________________________ 65
What constitutes a ‘high IF’? _________________________________________________ 65
Appendix 3: Examples of internationally recognised
resources and texts - monographs and pharmacopoeias 66
Monographs ____________________________________________________________________ 66
Pharmacopoeias _______________________________________________________________ 66
Appendix 4: References ________________________ 67
V3.0 uary 2019
Guidelines on the evidence required to support

indications for listed complementary medicines
Note: These guidelines will be subject to a broad review in 2019 to improve

the clarity and useability of the guidance for sponsors.
Who are these guidelines for?

These guidelines provide information for sponsors and applicants:
• on the type of evidence that is required to support indications for listed complementary
medicines; and
• to help you understand your regulatory obligations in relation to holding evidence to
support indications for your medicine.
Scope of guidelines
These guidelines provide information on the type of evidence that is required to support
indications for medicines listed under section 26A of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (the Act)
(excluding sunscreen therapeutic products). The document is comprised of two parts:
While sunscreens are a listed medicine product type, there is currently

separate guidance for these products provided in in the Australian Regulatory
Guidelines for Sunscreens (ARGS).
Part A provides guidance on:

• the types of indications and evidence sources
• how to assess the relevance, quality and balance of scientific evidence
• how to assess the credibility and relevance of evidence of traditional use; and
• how to obtain, record and present the evidence that supports your indication/s.
Part B provides additional technical guidance:
• to help you assess the relevance, quality, outcomes and overall balance of currently available
scientific evidence; and
• on the evidence required for indications relating to weight loss, biomarkers and nutritional
supplementation.
Evidence package checklists are available on the TGA website to help you assess, record and
present the available evidence for the indication/s for your medicine. Appendix 1 provides
assistance for completing the checklists.
V3.0 uary 2019
Related information/guidance
• Refer to Permitted indications for listed medicines guidance for information on what
permitted indications for listed medicines are, including terminology and structure, use and
applying for new indications.
• Refer to the Australian Regulatory Guidelines for Complementary Medicines (ARGCM) for
information on the regulation of listed medicines and registered complementary medicines
in Australia.
• Refer to Assessed listed medicines evidence guidelines for guidance on evidence
requirements for AUST L (A) assessed listed medicines.
• Refer to the Australian Regulatory Guidelines for Sunscreens (ARGS) for guidance on the
regulatory requirements for therapeutic sunscreen products.
TGA disclaimers
• This document is a guide only. It is the responsibility of each sponsor to
understand and comply with the regulatory requirements contained in the
Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 and supporting regulations. You are
encouraged to seek your own professional advice to find out how
therapeutic goods legislation and other applicable laws apply to you.
• Indications used in these guidelines have been provided as examples only.
These indications do not relate to actual medicines and whether there is
evidence to support the indications has not been assessed by the TGA.
• These guidelines reflect the TGA’s approach to assessing evidence to
support indications for listed complementary medicines. However, there
may be specific circumstances that justify a departure from the evidence
guidelines and in this situation the TGA will consider the merits of each
case against the regulatory requirements.
V3.0 uary 2019
Part A: Evidence to support indications for listed

complementary medicines
Indications for listed medicines
Consistent with their low risk status, listed medicines may only use low level indications that
will not lead to their unsafe or inappropriate use. From March 2018 all medicines listed under
section 26A of the Act (AUST L listed medicines) must:
• only use indications included in the Therapeutic Goods (Permissible Indications)
Determination
• must comply with all requirements relating to the use of those indications
A 3 year transition period is in place (ending 6 March 2021) for sponsors of

medicines listed under s26A of the Act before 6 March 2018, to meet the new
requirements for indications. At the end of the transition period, listed
medicines that do not meet the legislative requirements for permitted
indications will be cancelled from the ARTG. You cannot supply a medicine that
is cancelled from the ARTG in the Australian market. For more information on
the transition arrangements go to Permitted indications for listed medicines
on the TGA website.
Medicines listed under section 26AE of the Act [AUST L(A) assessed listed
medicines] may use indications included in the Permissible indications
Determination and in addition, must have at least one intermediate level
indication related to the assessed pathway. The efficacy of the medicine is
assessed by the TGA prior to ARTG entry. For more information on the
regulatory and evidence requirements for AUST L(A) assessed listed
medicines, refer to Assessed listed medicines evidence guidelines.
Indications included in the Permissible indications Determination have been assessed against a
set of criteria and determined to be appropriate for listed medicines. These criteria are intended
to ensure that permitted indications will only cover (and AUST L listed medicines will be limited
to making) indications relating to:
• health maintenance
• health enhancement
• prevention of a non-serious vitamin or mineral dietary deficiency
• a non-serious form of a disease, ailment, defect or injury
To be consistent with their low risk status, regulatory requirements are placed on the use of
certain indications in listed medicines. These are specified in the Permissible Indications
Determination.
See Permitted indications for listed medicines guidance for more information on: what
permitted indications for listed medicines are including: terminology; structure; use; and
applying for new indications.
V3.0 uary 2019
Indication types and evidence requirements

The Permissible Indications Determination specifies the type of evidence (traditional or
scientific) that must be held by sponsors to support the use of each permitted indication for
listed medicines. The types of indications and evidence sources are described in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Evidence requirements
Type of indication Type of evidence
Scientific indications Must be supported by scientific evidence, such as clinical studies or

systematic reviews, for example: ‘Help maintain/support bone
mineralisation’.
Traditional indications Must be supported by evidence of traditional use in a recognised

paradigm outside modern conventional medicine. These include
indications that can be used across different traditional paradigms,
for example: ‘Blood cleanser/purifier’.
Traditional Chinese Must be supported by evidence of traditional use within traditional

medicine indications Chinese medicine (TCM). These indications use specific terminology
used in TCM, for example: ‘Traditionally used in Chinese medicine to
warm and nourish yang’.
Traditional Ayurvedic Must be supported by evidence of traditional use within traditional

indications Ayurvedic medicine. These indications use specific terminology
used in Ayurvedic medicine, for example: ‘Traditionally used in
Ayurvedic medicine to relieve aggravated vata’.
What are the indication sub-types (specific or non-specific)?

Traditional or scientific indications can be further classified into two sub-types.
Sub-type 1: Non-specific (general indications)

Non-specific indications refer to general health and wellbeing, such as:
• health maintenance
• relief of symptoms not related to a named condition; and
• general vitamin, mineral or nutritional supplementation.
Sub-type 2: Specific indications

Specific indications refer to health benefits beyond general health and wellbeing, such as:
• health enhancement
• reduction of risk or frequency of a named condition or symptoms
• management or relief of symptoms linked to a named condition; and
• nutritional supplementation claims linked to a specific therapeutic benefit.
V3.0 uary 2019
Whether using traditional or scientific indications, the specificity of your indication determines
the level of evidence required to support your indication (refer to ‘What indication sub-type
does your evidence of traditional use support?’ and ‘What indication sub-type does your
scientific evidence support?’).
Note that indications included in Permissible Indications Determination are

not categorised as ‘Specific’ or ‘Non-specific’. The overall presentation of a
medicine, including such things as the combination of indications and product
name will be considered when determining if indications are specific or non-
specific for a particular medicine.
Table 2 and 3 provides examples of non-specific indications.

Table 2: Non-specific indications for listed medicines
Non-specific indications (scientific or traditional)
Health benefit Definition of health benefit Example of an indication
Health Normal physiological effects of ‘Maintain general health and

maintenance substances in growth, development wellbeing’
and normal functions of the body.
‘Traditionally used in Ayurvedic
medicine to maintain/support
healthy digestion’
Relief of general Symptoms not related to a named ’Decrease/reduce/relieve skin

symptoms condition redness’
‘Traditionally used in Chinese
medicine to relieve muscle pain’
General Supplementation with vitamins, ‘Maintain/support calcium levels in

nutritional minerals or other essential nutrients the body’
supplementation that imply a general health benefit
(scientific such as the maintenance of good
indications only) health.
Note: to make a supplementation
claim for a named vitamin or mineral,
the product must provide at least 25%
of the recommended dietary intake
(RDI) for that vitamin or mineral.
V3.0 uary 2019
Table 3: Specific indications for listed medicines

Specific indications (may be scientific or traditional)
Health benefit Definition of health benefit Example of an indication
Health Specific beneficial effects of ‘Helps enhance blood circulation to

enhancement nutrients and other substances on the peripheral areas of the body
the physiological and psychological (legs, hands and feet)’
state of the body above and
beyond normal growth, ‘Traditionally used in Western herbal
development and functions of the medicine to promote healthy
body. digestion’
Reduce occurrence Reduce the occurrence of a ‘Help reduce occurrence of symptoms

or frequency of a specified, non-serious illness, of medically diagnosed Irritable
named condition, condition, disease or disorder. Bowel Syndrome’
symptoms or
discrete event ‘Traditionally used in Australian
indigenous medicine to help reduce
occurrence of abdominal bloating’
Management or Reduces the frequency, duration ‘Relieve symptoms of hayfever’

relief of symptoms and/or severity of symptoms
linked to a named associated with a named illness. ‘Traditionally used in Western herbal
symptom/disease/ medicine to relieve symptoms of
disorder condition indigestion/dyspepsia’
Improved quality of life without ‘Enhance/improve/promote/increase

resolution of the underlying non- bowel regularity’
serious illness, condition, disease
or disorder. ‘Traditionally used in Western herbal
medicine to decrease symptoms of
mild arthritis/osteoarthritis’
Supplementation If a supplementation indication is ‘Support calcium absorption in bones

indications linked linked to a specific therapeutic to promote bone strength’
to a specific benefit, additional supportive
therapeutic benefit scientific evidence is required (as ‘Helps increase body utilisation of
(scientific well as the requirement to provide magnesium to help reduce
indications only) 25% of the RDI for that nutrient). occurrence of muscle cramp’
Indication qualifiers
When you enter your medicine in the electronic Listing Facility (ELF), you may also choose to
select indication qualifiers from drop down lists to make a permitted indication more specific
and align with the evidence you hold for your medicine. For more information see:
• Permitted indications for listed medicines guidance
• Listed medicines application and submission user guide for information on selecting
indication qualifiers
V3.0 uary 2019
Evidence to support indications for listed medicines

The term ‘evidence’ refers to both information and evidence as described in paragraph 26A(2)(j)
and subsection 28(6) of the Act.
As the sponsor of a listed medicine, you must hold evidence to support all the indications you
make for your medicine at the time you list the medicine in the ARTG. The evidence you hold
must adequately support all indications and demonstrate all claims made for the medicine are
true, valid and not misleading. You must keep that evidence for the whole time the medicine
remains listed and provide it to the TGA if requested to do so [as provided by subsection
26A(2)(j) and 28(6) of the Act].
What type of evidence do you have to support your indication?

Before deciding the indication/s for your medicine, you must determine the type of evidence you
have on which to base the indication. That is, do you have evidence of traditional use or scientific
evidence? And, is the evidence you hold supportive of a specific or non-specific indication?
Your evidence must:
• have the same meaning and intent as the selected indication
• be related to the same medicine or active ingredient/s; and
• have the same therapeutic action and the same context, for example: the same target
population; the same traditional paradigm.
Where there are differences between the ingredient and reported therapeutic benefit, a
justification will be required in your evidence package to address the discrepancy.
Do you have evidence of traditional use?

Traditional medicines are based on an extensive history of use, often measured over thousands
of years. This history provides an accumulated repository of systematic observation and
underpins the use of these medicines in a traditional setting. Usually when a medicine or a
relevant ingredient in the medicine has been used over a long period of time its dosage and
formulation have been refined by experience to maximise therapeutic effectiveness and
minimise risk.
Evidence of traditional use for an indication needs to show that the medicine or the relevant
ingredients in the medicine have a significant history of use in the specified tradition for the
specified therapeutic purpose. You are required to hold documentary evidence that your
medicine or its active ingredient has been used for at least three generations (at least 75 years)
in the tradition it belongs to. This will establish that it belongs to that tradition and that there is
an accumulated repository of observations in humans that underpins the use of the medicine.
For many traditional medicines there has been little quantifiable scientific research, scientific
assessment or scrutiny undertaken on the medicine’s mode of action or effect. It is inappropriate
to use evidence of traditional use to support a scientific claim of efficacy, a mechanism of action
or an underlying physiological process, as these are required to be supported by scientific
evidence.
If you have determined that the evidence you have is traditional, ‘What evidence do you need to
support your traditional indication?’ provides guidance on compiling your evidence package.
V3.0 uary 2019
Do you have scientific evidence?

Scientific evidence refers to quantifiable data and usually includes reports of clinical trials in
humans, human epidemiological studies, animal studies and other cellular or pharmacological
studies. Due to the quantifiable nature of scientific evidence, scientific indications can imply
clinical efficacy where the indication is supported by such data.
Examples of scientific evidence include:
• systematic reviews
• reports of clinical studies
• peer-reviewed published review articles; and
• pharmacopoeias and monographs.
If you only have non-clinical studies, cellular or pharmacological studies, these alone are not
considered sufficient evidence to support a scientific indication. However, such studies can be
used to provide secondary support to human data.
If you have determined that the evidence you have is scientific, ‘What evidence do you need to
support your scientific indication?’ provides guidance on compiling your evidence package.
Do you have a combination of scientific evidence and a history of traditional

use (cross-evidence base medicine)?
It is possible for a listed medicine to have scientific and traditional indications where there is a
combination of traditional and non-traditional ingredients (cross-evidence base medicine) with
a similar therapeutic purpose. Also, it is possible that an ingredient in a cross-evidence base
medicine may have evidence of traditional use that is also supported by current scientific
literature (cross-evidence base ingredient).
Each scientific or traditional indication requires supportive evidence and the indications must
indicate the evidence source (that is, traditional indications must include the traditional context
of use).
If you have a combination of scientific and traditional evidence for your medicine, ‘Cross-
evidence base medicine: What evidence do you need to support your medicine with a
combination of traditional and scientific indications?’ provides guidance on compiling your
evidence package.
How to source, assess, record and present evidence to support your

indication
Before listing your complementary medicine, you should compile an evidence summary to
support your traditional, scientific or ‘cross evidence base’ indications. Your evidence summary
should show that you have conducted an objective, comprehensive, transparent and robust
review of the literature relating to your indication. The resulting evidence you hold should be of
high quality, credible and relevant to your medicine.
Evidence package checklists available on the TGA website help you sift through the available
literature to identify what is appropriate evidence and exclude what is not. The checklists will
assist you to collate and compile your evidence summary and determine which evidence items
are credible, relevant and of high quality.
V3.0 uary 2019
As a mechanism of establishing that you have the evidence to support your indications, you
should consider completing the appropriate checklists for your medicine and associated
indications, before listing your medicine on the ARTG. You should hold all the information
contained within the checklists for your medicine and submit this information to the TGA when
requested to do so.
During a compliance review of your medicine, the TGA may request the evidence you hold to
support the indications you make for your medicine. At this time, you may include the
appropriate checklists (or similar information) as part of your response to the TGA’s request for
information. While presenting your information in the provided checklist format is not
mandatory, submitting information in this format will help facilitate and expedite the
compliance review process.
Diagram 1 provides a general flow chart on the steps for compiling your evidence package for
your listed medicine. Detailed guidance on compiling traditional or scientific evidence packages
is provided in:
• How to compile a summary of the evidence to support your traditional indication
• How to compile a summary of the evidence to support your scientific indication
V3.0 uary 2019
Diagram 1: Compiling an evidence package to support the indication/s for your listed
medicine
V3.0 uary 2019
Traditional indications: what evidence do you

need to support your traditional indication?
Evidence of traditional use
Traditional indications present factual statements of a health benefit relating to a historical
record of use within a traditional paradigm. Traditional indications cannot make a scientific
claim of efficacy; as such indications require supportive scientific evidence.
Evidence of traditional use to support your traditional indication can be based on the medicine
itself as a whole, or on evidence for the individual ingredient about which the indication is made.
Each ingredient should be clearly identified and you must hold evidence for each indication. If
you choose a traditional indication that is linked to a specific ingredient in the medicine’s
formulation, then that ingredient should be linked to that indication on the medicine’s label.
To claim evidence of traditional use you should ensure that your medicine or ingredient is an
established part of a tradition of medicinal use within a particular paradigm/culture for over
three generations.
Evidence of traditional use

Traditional indications are based on evidence of a history of medicinal use of
the ingredients or medicines that exceeds three generations (75 years) of use.
Many traditional ingredients have a well-established period of widespread traditional use

extending well over 75 years, which is extensively recorded in recognised evidence sources for
traditional medicine such as materia medica, monographs and publications from various
international regulatory authorities.
Factors that should be taken into account to establish that a medicine or active ingredient has a
well-established tradition of use for its intended purpose include the:
• time over which the medicine or active ingredient has been used
• therapeutic use/s during that time
• continuity of its use
• geographical extent of its use ; and
• use of the medicine is recorded in recognised traditional medicine evidence sources.
Well established traditional of use

Traditional indications based on:
• evidence of a history of widespread medicinal use of the ingredient/s or
medicine that well exceeds three generations of use (75 years); and
• the traditional use is extensively recorded in internationally recognised
evidence sources for traditional medicine use
V3.0 uary 2019
If the traditional indication is non-specific (general) and is associated with a well-established

tradition of use for a particular ingredient or medicine, then the evidence to support the
traditional indication is easier to assess and establish.
Homoeopathic medicines
Homoeopathic medicine is a traditional paradigm where the manufacturing
process of serial dilution and succussion or serial trituration is a major
component of the tradition of use. Provided that a substance is prepared
according to principles described in a recognised homoeopathic
pharmacopoeia and safety requirements are satisfied, indications may be
based on traditional use. Evidence of traditional use for homoeopathic
medicines can include independent written histories of use in traditional or
contemporary homoeopathic literature.
Evidence package checklists will assist you in compiling an evidence package for your traditional
indication.
Multi-traditional paradigm medicines

A listed medicine may contain multiple traditional ingredients that are supported by evidence of
therapeutic use within different traditional paradigms (multiple traditional paradigms). Each
indication must be supported by evidence and include the traditional context of use (see
Indication qualifiers).
The resulting medicine or formulation is not traditional in the context of either of the original
traditional paradigms. For example, an ingredient from traditional Chinese medicine may be
combined with another ingredient from traditional Ayurvedic medicine. However, since the new
formulation is neither a traditional Chinese nor Ayurvedic medicine, the formulation as a whole
cannot claim a history of use. Therefore, each indication must refer to the relevant ingredient
and specify the traditional paradigm of use.
Your evidence package should include a rationale for the combination of the ingredients in the
new formulation which is justifiable in terms of therapeutic use; this includes the dose of each
ingredient based on their respective traditional uses.
Example of a traditional indication for a multi traditional paradigm medicine:

‘These herbs are used traditionally in Chinese medicine and Ayurvedic medicine to promote muscle
relaxation’.
What are the sources of evidence of traditional use?

Many traditional medicines and ingredients with a long and coherent history of use are well
documented in monographs, materia medica and other texts. Some traditional medicine
paradigms have been recorded by people outside the tradition’s indigenous origin and culture.
Other traditional medicine paradigms, particularly those that have been developed within
smaller and more localised groups are not well documented; rather they are based on
knowledge transmitted orally from generation to generation.
In some instances, you may need different sources of evidence of traditional use to support a
particular indication for a traditional ingredient or formulation. Together these sources should
form a combined collective of evidence that will be relevant and of high quality.
Note that in general, web searches will not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate traditional
indications.
V3.0 uary 2019
What are the primary sources of evidence of traditional use?

Primary sources of evidence to support traditional indications for your medicine can be derived
from sources such as:
• materia medica
• official pharmacopoeias
• monographs
• publications from various international regulatory authorities
• texts that are relevant to the traditional paradigm; and
• well recognised evidence-based reference texts.
A pharmacopoeia contains a comprehensive list of medicines and describes

their properties and how they are prepared.
A materia medica sets out the body of knowledge on the therapeutic
properties of medicines. Different materia medica relate to different types of
complementary medicines, for example: Traditional Chinese Medicine and
homoeopathy.
While the TGA does not have a list of approved sources of information, Appendix 3 provides
some examples of internationally recognised resources and texts.
Each item of evidence must be considered on its own merit in relation to your
medicine. An item of evidence can only be considered a primary source of
evidence if it establishes a tradition of use and is credible and relevant for your
medicine/indication.
Some monographs refer to clinical studies or pharmacology of a particular ingredient using

citations and reporting study outcomes of auxiliary scientific papers. Such information would be
considered a secondary source of scientific evidence and is often associated with scientific
indications. Such information is not consistent with evidence of tradition of use and traditional
indications.
Can non-reference textbooks be used as sources of evidence?

Non-reference textbooks cite, comment on or build on primary sources of evidence. As such,
non-reference textbooks do not usually provide sufficient evidence to substantiate traditional
indications. If you use a non-reference textbook, you should locate the original or primary
source of evidence of traditional use; that is, find copies or quotations from the original
documents cited in footnotes. If this is not possible then include the footnotes in your evidence
summary to clearly indicate that the textbook is based on original historic records.
Where it is impossible to find the original reference that describes the traditional use, evidence
of traditional use may be supported by more recent references reporting the original tradition.
However, these references should provide enough information to support that your medicine is
consistent, as far as possible, with the one described in the original reference.
V3.0 uary 2019
Can you use modern textbooks and monographs to support your

traditional indication?
Many modern textbooks and monographs include a combination of both traditional and
scientific evidence. If you are using a textbook, monograph or similar source to support an
indication, you must determine whether the information in the source is traditional (over three
generations of use) or scientific.
In a situation where a traditional indication is used in combination with a scientific statement
relating to the mechanism of action of the ingredients, the combined indications must not imply
clinical efficacy unless supported by scientific evidence.
Mechanistic studies [in vitro studies or non-clinical (animal) studies)] are types of secondary
sources of evidence and are appropriate to provide information regarding the biological
plausibility of a mechanism of action. However, non-clinical studies are rarely a supportive form
of evidence in isolation and cannot be used to imply efficacy of a medicine in the absence of
clinical studies.
Can you use independent written histories to support your traditional

indication?
When supporting evidence includes independent written histories of use in the classical or
traditional literature (such as in relation to oral evidence or testimonials), the significance and
clarity of references to any health benefit should be assessed by whether the:
• traditional paradigm is defined
• ingredient(s)/medicine is/are fully characterised (for example: chemically, biologically)
• preparation is described
• dose and dosing details are documented
• route of administration is specified
• target population is defined; and
• traditional indication is described.
Can you use evidence in languages other than English to support your
Evidence in a language other than English can be used, if you provide in your evidence package
a:
• copy of the relevant pages in the original language; and
• verified English translation of the relevant pages.
A verified translation is one that is accompanied by a signed statement from an accredited
translator, fluent in both languages, verifying that the translation is true and complete.
Are there any other evidence sources you can use to support your
If the traditional indication is from an oral culture, video footage (stored in a digital format, not
on film) may be appropriate. To be regarded as high quality, oral evidence must be corroborated
from at least two separate sources in different locations.
V3.0 uary 2019
Assessing the relevance of evidence to your indication

You must ensure that the evidence of traditional use for your indication is comparable to your
medicine in terms of:
• ingredient/s
• method of preparation
• dosage; and
• conditions of use (route of administration, frequency and duration of use, target population
and risks).
In general, active ingredients may be considered as sufficiently identical if there are no relevant
differences in the method of preparation and if the medicine has the same intended purpose,
dosage and the same route of administration. This includes traditional medicines in which the
therapeutic indication, dosage and administration are based on traditional knowledge but the
dosage forms have been modified to modern dosage forms, for example: capsules or tablets.
When evidence relates to an herb or herbal substance, the species (and subspecies where
applicable), plant part and route of administration should be identical to that described in the
evidence. The method of preparation and processing, the equivalent dry weight and the dose of
active component described in the evidence should be consistent with that in the medicine.
Traditional methods of preparation include:
• the use of a whole organism or specific parts (leaf, root, fruiting body, etc.)
• fresh, dried, or preserved with alcohol, honey or sugar
• extracts produced by the application of pressure to the source material
• aqueous extracts such as infusions, decoctions and syrups
• ethanol-based extracts such as tinctures
• glycerine-based extracts
• vinegar-based extracts
• oil, grease or fat-based infusions; and
• beeswax salves and ointments.
Other methods of preparation may be considered traditional if supported by an appropriate
reference describing the use of the method within the traditional medicine paradigm. However,
non-traditional methods of preparation of otherwise traditional materials, including the use of
non-traditional solvents, can change the chemical profile of the preparation. Such changes may
affect the efficacy (and safety) of the product. Medicines that have been altered significantly in
their constituent profile from the traditional medicine on which the indication is based will
require scientific evidence to substantiate their claimed action.
Additional guidance on the Equivalence of herbal extracts in complementary medicines is
available on the TGA website.
Medicinal preparations described in early pharmacopoeias, materia medica and other traditional
references may pre-date modern analytical techniques. These are unlikely to provide a
comprehensive and satisfactory specification (for the characterisation and establishment of the
quality of the ingredient or medicine). In such situations, your active ingredients and method of
preparation should be identical to that described in the classical literature.
V3.0 uary 2019
Modification of traditional formulations

Modification to the traditional formulations in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and

Ayurvedic medicine should ensure that the traditional method of preparation, traditional

formulation principles and dosage for the therapy remain in order for these medicines to make a

traditional indication.
That is, to meet the criteria for a traditional claim using a history of TCM use, the overall

medicine formulation should reflect the traditional principles of ingredient combinations or

substitution of herbal species.

For traditional ingredients or medicines which have been altered significantly in their

constituent profile from the classical traditional medicine on which the indication is based,

further information may be required to justify the alteration in order to substantiate their

claimed indication.

What indication sub-type does your evidence of traditional

use support?
The sub-type of the indication will affect the level of evidence required to substantiate the

indication. The more non-specific the traditional indication, the greater likelihood that the

evidence to support the indication can be found in Primary sources of evidence of traditional use

and the more straightforward the evidence assessment process will be.

Table 4 provides information on the level of evidence generally required to substantiate non-

specific and specific traditional indications.

Table 4: Levels of evidence generally required to support sub-types of traditional
indications
Level of indication Evidentiary support required
Traditional non-specific
Two primary sources of evidence of traditional use.

(general) indications

Traditional specific
At least two primary sources of evidence of traditional use as well

indications as other relevant and credible items of evidence to support the

specificity of the indication.

Examples
Example 1: Supportive evidence for a non-specific indication for a

traditional ingredient:
A listed medicine c
ontains a p
reparation of Allium sativum (garlic) that has a well-established
traditional use i n supporting the i mmune s
ystem and has the following indication: ‘Traditionally
used in Ayurvedic medicine to support immune system function in healthy individuals’.
Example 2: Non-supportive evidence for a traditional specific indication

A listed medicine c
ontains a n
umber of herbs commonly used in TCM and has the indication:
‘Traditionally used in Chinese medicine to relieve symptoms of heartburn’.
The only evidence t
he s
ponsor holds that the i ngredients have a t
radition of use w
ithin TCM is a
copy of the r
elevant pages from a contemporary Chinese r eference t hat indicate o
ne of the herbs

V3.0 uary 2019

present in the medicine was used in ancient times for symptoms such as ‘stomach fire with
rebellious stomach qi’. However, there is no information on the plant part of the herbal species
used, the method of preparation or the recommended dosage.
In this instance, the evidence item is not sufficient to support the proposed indication.
Example 3: Supportive evidence item for a traditional specific indication:

A listed medicine contains a number of herbs commonly used in TCM and has the indication:
‘Traditionally used in Chinese medicine to relieve cough’.
All ingredients are included in the Pharmacopoeia of the People’s Republic of China (PPRC). The
formulation is referred to in a TCM Materia medica. Ingredients in the medicine are the same
plant part, preparation type and quantity as that referred to in the traditional formula in the
Materia medica. However, one of the herbal ingredients is not a permitted ingredient in listed
medicines in Australia. This ingredient has been substituted in the medicine available in
Australia by another herbal ingredient, which is listed in the PPRC as a widely accepted
medicinal substitute for the original herbal ingredient. In this instance, this evidence item is
likely to support the proposed indication.
Choosing or deciding upon your traditional indication

Due to the discordance between traditional and contemporary contexts and the potential for
consumers to assume that medicines have been assessed scientifically, traditional indications
are required to include the traditional context of use in the indication. Evidence of traditional
use must clearly identify the traditional paradigm which it refers to, and this context must be
conveyed clearly to the consumer. When traditional use is limited to a particular paradigm, then
this limitation must be referenced in the indication.
Note that under advertising requirements, if an advertisement for a

complementary medicine includes a claim or group of claims based on
evidence of a history of traditional use, the reliance on this traditional use and
paradigm must be disclosed in the advertisement and the disclosure must be
prominently displayed or communicated in the advertisement – refer to
Therapeutic goods advertising code.
Compare your chosen indication with the reported health benefit and context of use in your
evidence of traditional use. Your indication should have the same meaning and intent specified
in the evidence (including any traditional terminology). The terms used in your indication
should be consistent with the specified paradigm to ensure that the indication is not misleading
and appropriately supported by the evidence you hold. The use of common English terms in
addition to traditional terminology may provide clarity to the average consumer regarding the
therapeutic use of the medicine.
You should ensure that each ingredient (for which a traditional indication is made) has been
prepared using a traditional method for that paradigm (for example: dilution and succussion of
mother tinctures for homoeopathic medicines). Where your medicine has been modified from a
classic formula or individual ingredient –you should show that the formula or ingredient, as
modified, is still acceptable within the specified tradition.
When choosing your traditional indication you should:
• select the traditional paradigm that supports the traditional formulation
V3.0 uary 2019
• ensure the evidence supporting the indication is based on experiences or theories specific to
the particular tradition, not on scientific clinical evidence
• ensure the indication uses the same logic and terminology (may be accompanied by English
terms on the medicine label) as the evidence of use in the specified traditional paradigm
• Traditional indications cannot refer to anatomical, physiological or pharmacological effects
that are not envisaged within the specified paradigm, for example: ‘raise haemoglobin levels’
• imply efficacy based on scientific evidence for the medicine, for example: ‘clinically tested’
• use specialist terminology that belongs to a different paradigm, for example: ‘damp heat’ is a
specific Chinese medicine term and would be inappropriate for an Ayurvedic medicine
• include indications that require scientific substantiation, for example: ‘assists to increase
bone density by 10%’; or’
• refer to conditions that cannot be diagnosed within the specified paradigm, for example:
‘Traditionally used in Chinese medicine to increase bone mineral density’ is inappropriate as
increased bone mineral density cannot be monitored or determined without conventional
medical intervention
If you are aware that there is conflicting evidence between the history of
traditional use and contemporary scientific evidence for your medicine, then it
is advisable to include a statement to this effect in any labelling and advertising
associated with the medicine, for example: ‘this traditional use is not supported
by scientific evidence’. This will ensure that the advertised information relating
to your medicine is truthful, valid and not misleading.
In choosing your traditional indication, ask yourself:
• Are the terms used to describe your indication the same as those in your
evidence of traditional use?
• If the terms are different from those in the evidence of traditional use, can
you justify the change?
How to compile a summary of the evidence to support your

traditional indication
You should compile an evidence summary demonstrating that you have conducted an objective,
comprehensive review of the literature relating to your traditional indication/s. The resulting
evidence you hold should be:
• relevant to your medicine
• be of high quality; and
• adequately demonstrate that all traditional indications you make for your medicine are true,
valid and not misleading.
Evidence package checklists provided on the TGA website assist you to collate your evidence
summary and filter evidence items to those that are credible and relevant to your medicine.
Refer to Appendix 1: How to use evidence package checklists for assistance the process. While
presentation in this manner is not compulsory, it will expedite the compliance review process
should your medicine be selected for an evidence compliance review.
V3.0 uary 2019
Scientific indications: what evidence do you need

to support your scientific indication?
Scientific evidence refers to quantifiable data and includes: clinical trials in humans;
epidemiological evidence; animal studies; and other evidence of biological activity. Due to the
quantifiable nature of scientific evidence, scientific indications can imply efficacy to health
outcomes.
Example: Evidence for a scientific indication

A medicine containing turmeric (Curcumae longae rhizoma) has undergone randomised placebo-
controlled clinical trials in humans and has been shown to provide a statistically significant
decrease in symptoms of indigestion (abdominal pain, discomfort and excessive wind) in this
well designed study. An appropriate indication for this medicine may be:
‘Turmeric relieves symptoms of indigestion such as abdominal pain/discomfort and excessive
intestinal wind’.
Scientific indications are usually supported with data from relevant controlled human clinical
trials, or studies. These studies may be supplemented by other sources of evidence. You may
also choose to conduct clinical trials on your medicine. For more information on conducting your
own clinical trials refer to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) website.
What are the sources of scientific evidence?

High quality sources of scientific evidence include:
• Peer-reviewed 1 original clinical research in well cited journals, for example: New England
Journal of Medicine or The Lancet. Well cited journals are those with high Journal Impact
Factors of greater than 5 (refer to Appendix 2: Journal impact factors).
• Peer-reviewed journals are considered a good place to start when searching for supporting
scientific evidence.
• Systematic reviews of the clinical research relating to particular subject areas – such as those
conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration. Systematic reviews are also reported in high-
quality journals.
• Unpublished studies or ‘Propriety research’ (as long as they fulfil the required criteria).
• Secondary sources or non-clinical studies. Only human studies are considered appropriate to
support indications for listed medicines. The scientific uncertainties involved in
extrapolating non-human data from animal and in vitro studies limit their usefulness.
However, non-human and in vitro studies may be used to support any discussion on
biological plausibility.
1‘Peer review’ is the evaluation of research by other people in the same field to maintain the quality of
work in that field.
V3.0 uary 2019
What databases can you use to search for scientific evidence?

General web search engines are not considered appropriate databases or sources of primary
scientific evidence. Similarly, online databases containing a limited collection of scientific
abstracts are not considered primary sources of scientific evidence.
To find scientific journal articles that may be relevant to your indication; you should search a
comprehensive electronic database such as MEDLINE (an electronic database produced by the
United States National Library of Medicine that indexes millions of articles from 5,000-plus
reputable biomedical journals from around the world).
Examples of comprehensive electronic databases include:
• MEDLINE
• EMBASE
• Web of Science
• the Cochrane library
• BIOSIS
• Sciverse Scopus
• Cab Health
• AGRICOLA
• Food Science and Technology Abstracts
Access to MEDLINE is through the PubMed search facility, where you will also find search
instructions, tutorials and FAQs. MEDLINE/PubMed provides abstracts (summaries) and
citations for the journal articles listed, and often links to the full-text articles online.
Database searches
Your database search should utilise MEDLINE/PubMed electronic databases
and include at least one other relevant database.
Web search engines are not considered appropriate databases or sources of
primary evidence.
During your database search, if a substantial number of results (hits) are received, you can
refine your search by reducing the date range to the last 5-10 years (a justification for refining
the date range should be recorded in your evidence package).
Your database search of the literature should be documented to best practice standards. The
Australian Regulatory Guidelines for Complementary Medicines (ARGCM) provides guidance on
appropriate search strategy standards. The search terms, databases and search interfaces you
use and the numbers of references retrieved should be documented in your evidence package
(Evidence package checklists).
V3.0 uary 2019
Using internationally recognised monographs or pharmacopoeias to

support your scientific indication
High-quality and credible texts such as internationally recognised pharmacopoeias or
monographs maintained by other international regulatory bodies (refer to Appendix 3) or
evidence based reference texts may also be appropriate to support non-specific (general)
indications, such as: nutrient supplementation indications when multiple monographs from
different independent regulatory bodies report the same therapeutic benefit.
Internationally recognised monographs and pharmacopoeias can also provide additional
support to specific indications referring to health enhancement claims, but such items will need
further evidentiary support from primary research articles and/or systematic reviews. The
more specific the indication, the more evidence you need to support your indication.
Using clinical studies to support your scientific indication

When citing a publication, you should not rely simply on the fact that a study is published as
being sufficient to support your indications. Sometimes the results of published clinical studies
are reviewed by others and these thoughts are captured in letters to the editor published
separately in the journal. Often clinical studies may indicate that the results are indicative that
an effect might be present, but that further work is needed. Such studies cannot be relied on
solely to support specific indications.
Studies that have been through a peer review process are more likely to be methodologically
robust and valid. You need to evaluate each piece of evidence to ensure that it is relevant and of
high quality to support your indication.
Certain clinical studies offer higher quality evidence than others due to their methodological
design (NHMRC, 2009). You should select the highest quality of evidence available to support for
your indications.
Suitable evidence to support a scientific indication can be obtained from:
• high quality, preferably multi-centre, random controlled trials (RCT)
• well-designed controlled trials with randomisation; or
• well-designed analytical studies preferably from more than one research group, including
cohort and case-control studies.
Clinical trials, particularly randomised, placebo-controlled and blinded trials, provide the most
robust information regarding the potential efficacy of a particular intervention. Case-control
studies and cohort studies may not be practical means of providing evidence for some
indications and are limited in their ability to produce unbiased and unambiguous data regarding
the true efficacy of an intervention. They can, however, provide valuable supportive data
relating to the likely effectiveness of an intervention within the general population. Case studies
and epidemiological surveys do not have sufficient strength in their own right to justify a
scientific indication.
If you use a systematic review to support an indication, it is necessary for you to demonstrate
that the studies included in that review are relevant and satisfy the requirements outlined in the
subsequent sections.
Diagram 2 and Table 5 display the hierarchy of evidence sources.
V3.0 uary 2019
Diagram 2: Hierarchy of evidence sources
Table 5: Levels of evidence associated with clinical studies (adapted from NHMRC)
Level Intervention Definition
I A systematic review of Cochrane Reviews are examples of such systematic

level II studies. reviews.
II A randomised controlled An experiment in which investigators randomly allocate

trial. eligible people into intervention groups to receive or not to
receive one or more interventions that are being
compared. The results are assessed by comparing
outcomes in the treatment and control groups.
III A pseudo-randomised A pseudo-randomised controlled trial is a study with an

controlled trial (that is: independent, blinded comparison with a valid reference
alternate allocation); or standard between participants with a defined clinical
presentation.
A comparative study with
concurrent controls: Comparative studies with concurrent controls include:
non-randomised experimental trial; cohort studies; case-
(Non-randomised); or
control studies; or interrupted time series with a control
A comparative study group.
without concurrent
Comparative studies without concurrent controls include
controls.
historical control studies, two or more single arm studies,
cohort studies, case-control studies, and interrupted time
series without a parallel control group.
Refer to the National Health and Medical Research Council
for definitions.
IV Case series with either In depth description of the factors related to a disease,
post-test or pre-test/post- disorder or condition in a specific individual or group of
test outcomes. individuals.
V3.0 uary 2019
Can you use unpublished studies to support your scientific indication?

Unpublished studies can contribute to your evidence base for a scientific indication if they are
relevant and have been reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. To facilitate an
accurate interpretation of methodological quality, any original research must be appropriately
documented [Schulz et.al. (2010)].
Can you use abstracts to support your scientific indication?

Abstracts are not primary sources of scientific evidence and cannot stand alone to support
scientific indications. These documents usually do not give sufficient details as to how the
research was conducted or the data were analysed, thereby not allowing an objective evaluation
of the quality of the research data and the conclusions drawn by the study authors.
Can you use non-clinical studies to support your scientific indication?

Animal or in vitro studies cannot stand alone to support scientific indications. The scientific
uncertainties involved in extrapolating human health benefits from animal and in vitro studies
limit their usefulness. Non-clinical studies are considered secondary sources of scientific
evidence, and may provide additional weight to a proposed health benefit when limited clinical
studies are available. Only clinical (human) studies are considered primary sources of scientific
evidence and sufficient to support indications for listed medicines.
Can you extrapolate target population groups from clinical study

groups?
Indications may refer to health benefits for the general population or for specific sub-
populations (for example: children or elderly). The study should be carried out in a study group
representative of the population group for which the indication is intended to be made.
Extrapolation of results obtained from subjects outside the target population group is normally
not accepted unless it can be appropriately justified. Given the variability of the indications and
evidence such justifications can only be made and assessed on a case by case basis.
Using systematic reviews and review articles to support your scientific

indication
Systematic reviews are reports of the outcome of analysis of a large number of clinical trials
(sometimes known as a ‘meta-analysis’) aimed at looking for an overall pattern in the trial
results. In a systematic analysis only those trials that meet a number of pre-set conditions in
relation to research design (for example: sample size, randomisation) are included in the final
meta-analysis. Cochrane Reviews are examples of such systematic reviews.
Review articles report the study outcomes of a collection of study articles with a common theme
or on a particular topic. The review author/s will assess the published research, conduct
research regarding the major research advances or report on any significant data gaps then
present findings in a coherent view. Review articles provide broad information about a given
topic, but are limited in their ability to provide support to specific indications. These limitations
are primarily driven by limited scientific assessment or scrutiny of the studies reported in the
review article, as review author/s often report the study outcomes as reported by study authors
without further assessment of the study methodology.
Using Cochrane Reviews to support your scientific indication

Often a good source of high-quality evidence for scientific indications will be the Cochrane
Library, a searchable database of the systematic reviews done by the Cochrane Collaboration.
V3.0 uary 2019
The Cochrane Collaboration is highly regarded, internationally recognised source of

independent research. Cochrane reviews are systematic surveys of primary research (that is:
experimental research) on healthcare topics.
Each Cochrane review starts with a clear question, for example: ‘Does Echinacea reduce the
occurrence of the common cold?’ It then searches for and collates all the existing primary
research from around the world that meets certain quality standards. Carefully following
protocols that are designed to minimise bias, it then assesses that evidence against strict
guidelines to establish whether there are conclusive findings that answer the question. The
reviews are updated frequently.
Cochrane reviews concentrate on research conducted using randomised controlled trials (RCT).
A randomised controlled trial is a study in which people are randomly allocated to one of two
groups. One of the groups receives the treatment being tested (for example. a pill containing
Echinacea purpurea). The other, known as the control group, receives a placebo treatment (for
example: a sugar pill). No-one in either group knows which treatment they received. The study is
controlled so that all participants have similar care in all ways other than the treatment being
tested. Ideally the study participants, the scientists running the trial and those assessing the
outcomes are also unaware of which group participants are in – this is called ‘double-blinding’.
Cochrane reviews are written by and for scientists but each has a plain language summary
(under 400 words) explaining the background, methods, results and weaknesses of the review.
Even if you are not a scientist, these summaries can help you assess whether the evidence is
relevant to your medicine’s indication, but it would be beneficial for a person with expertise in
critical appraisal to review the full study to determine if it actually supports your claim.
Systematic reviews and RCT are often associated with higher quality evidence and are
appropriate to support scientific indications for listed medicines. However, various levels of
clinical trials may be of high quality, but offer lower level of clinical significance due to the
design of the study. For instance, random placebo-controlled trials are often seen as higher level
or quality of evidence compared to cohort studies (refer to glossary for definition of terms) due
to a lower level of potential confounders or bias in RCT studies.
Your evidence package should predominately consist of primary sources of evidence that are
relevant to your medicine and of high quality. Multiple low-quality sources of evidence are
unlikely to be adequate to support indications for listed medicines.
When using any evidence source, including systematic reviews or publications

in a peer-reviewed journal, you must ensure that the evidence is relevant to
your ingredient/medicine and relevant to your indication (see Using clinical
studies to support a scientific indication).
V3.0 uary 2019
Assessing your evidence
Relevance of the evidence to your indication

During your search for evidence you may come across many different types of evidence from a
variety of different sources of literature. Review of the literature to produce an existing body of
high-quality evidence that is relevant to the indication or medicine is known as ‘filtering’
(Evidence package checklists provide a checklist to assist you with this process).
Establishing the relevant evidence base for your proposed indication is a critical step in the
review of evidence. This requires an assessment of the relevance of every item retrieved from
the literature review of your proposed medicine, dose and indications. The relevant evidence
base for your proposed indication includes all studies that are relevant in terms (amongst
others) of ingredient, health benefit, population and context of use.
You must determine what indication is supported by the evidence you have obtained.
Below are the concepts to allow you to assess whether the item of evidence is relevant to your
medicine/indication.
Health benefit (indication)

You should ensure that the research is relevant to your proposed specific indication for your
medicine. In selecting indications, you should take care to make sure that they match the
underlying evidence you hold. Indications that do not match the science, no matter how sound
that science is, are unlikely to be supported. Indications should not exaggerate the extent,
nature, or prominence of the effects achieved in a study (the study outcomes), and should not
suggest greater scientific certainty than that which actually exists.
All indications based on scientific evidence must be supported by primary evidence, such as
clinical studies. The scientific uncertainties involved in extrapolating human data from animal
and in vitro studies limit their usefulness as an evidence base to support your indication. Non-
human and in vitro studies may, however, be used to support any discussion on biological
plausibility of a potential mode of action in humans.
Participants enrolled in studies used to justify indications for your listed medicine should fit the
following eligibility criteria, unless your medicine is directed to a specific population sub-group:
• male and female participants
• generally healthy
• aged 18–65 years; and
• socioculturally similar to the Australian population.
Secondary evidence or non-clinical studies (such as mechanistic studies) are normally
insufficient to support indications implying efficacy. However, secondary evidence may be used
in conjunction with primary evidence to strengthen the wording of an indication.
Dosage
For scientific indications, the recommended dosage and duration or frequency of administration
of the medicine must be consistent with the evidence supporting the indication.
V3.0 uary 2019
Active ingredient and route of administration

The evidence must relate to the whole medicine, the same active constituent(s) with a similar
dosage regimen, dose form and route of administration to the medicine for which a claim is
being made. For specific scientific indications for example, the different formulation between
your medicine and that of the formulation reported in the scientific evidence is very important
(for example: the use of a novel tablet matrix). If there are differences noted, then further
justifications will be required to address the data gaps identified using the checklists provided.
Assessing the quality of the evidence

In addition to determining the relevance of the item of evidence, you need to determine whether
the evidence is of high quality. Importantly, to facilitate the assessment of balance view of
evidence, both relevant non-supporting and supporting items of evidence will need to be
assessed for quality.
Methodology, blinding and randomisation

The clinical research being used to support your scientific indication should be conducted in a
reliable manner to yield meaningful and reproducible results. The design, implementation, and
results of each piece of research are important in assessing the adequacy of the substantiation of
the health benefit or study outcome.
There are some principles generally accepted in the scientific community to enhance the validity
of test results. However, there is no single set protocol for how to conduct research. For
example, a study that is carefully controlled, with blinding of subjects and researchers, is likely
to yield more reliable results. A study of longer duration can provide better evidence that the
claimed effect will persist and better evidence to identify potential safety concerns.
You should critically appraise scientific studies in terms of methodological quality and the
possibility of bias and/or confounding. Studies that have been peer-reviewed may be more likely
to be methodologically robust. You should assess the results of scientific studies for statistical
significance and meaningfulness (clinical significance) of the reported therapeutic benefit. Your
evidence should demonstrate an overall improvement in the expected health benefit that is
statistically and clinically significant. Additionally, studies that incorporate randomisation
process of assigning trial subjects to treatment or control groups are often considered of greater
quality due to the reduction of potential for bias. The randomisation method should be
described in the study report and meet contemporary standards (such as using post-study
questionnaires’ of study participants to confirm that they remained blinded). Similarly, the
incorporation of good blinding methods in the study design tends to result in studies that are
methodologically robust.
Statistical analysis
A study that fails to show a statistically significant difference between test and control group
may indicate that the measured effects are merely the result of a placebo effect or chance. The
results should translate into a meaningful health benefit for consumers. Some results that are
statistically significant may still be so small that they may not provide a positive effect to
consumer health.
Filtering relevant evidence to those of high quality will involve, as a minimum, an assessment of
the following:
• characterisation of the ingredient/s
• study design/methods
V3.0 uary 2019
• participant eligibility (inclusion/exclusion criteria)

• adequacy of randomisation and blinding of participants (for example Randomised
Controlled Trials (RCT))
• sample size justification
• controlling for potential confounders
• study attrition (for RCT and cohort studies); and
• statistical analyses undertaken.
For each study, the meaningfulness of the observed effect/s to consumers at an individual
and/or population level (clinical significance) must be assessed.
Balanced view of your scientific evidence

Studies cannot be evaluated in isolation of the surrounding context. The context of the scientific
evidence is just as important as the internal validity of individual studies. You need to consider
all relevant research relating to the claimed benefit of your medicine and should not focus only
on research that supports the effect, while discounting research that does not. A well-
constructed literature search should normally be undertaken to help ensure that the general
body of evidence related to a specific indication is identified.
Before you list a medicine in the ARTG you must be satisfied that the balance of evidence
supports your indication. In other words, a reasonable person making an objective assessment
of all the relevant, high-quality evidence about your medicine would conclude that the weight of
good evidence is in favour of your indication rather than against it. Your indications must not,
indirectly, or by implication, lead consumers to believe that your medicine will assist in a health
benefit that is not explicitly supported by the balance of evidence.
The evidence you hold to support your indication should consist of studies that are largely
consistent with the surrounding body of evidence. Where there are inconsistencies in the
evidence, it is important that you examine whether there is a plausible explanation for those
inconsistencies, for example: in some instances the differences in results will be attributable to
differences in dosage, the form of administration, the population tested, or other aspects of
study methodology. You should assess how relevant each piece of research is to your medicine
and the specific indication you wish to make, and also consider the relative strengths and
weaknesses of each. If a number of studies of different quality have been conducted on a specific
topic, you should look first to the results of the studies with more reliable methodologies (that is,
RCTs or systematic reviews).
You should also ensure that the evidence supporting your indications remains valid for the life of
the medicine, and this is best achieved using a body of evidence approach. As research advances,
the body of scientific evidence supporting a particular health benefit may change. Newer clinical
studies may enhance the strength of the evidence supporting your claim, or it may be
inconsistent with the strength of previous research. Having a body of supporting evidence will
allow you to ensure that the indications claimed for your medicine remain true, valid, are not
misleading and consistent with scientific evidence for the life your medicine.
V3.0 uary 2019
What indication sub-type does your scientific evidence

support?
Depending on the indication sub-type, the required evidence to support the indication will be
different. Non-specific indications such as ‘may assist with general health and well-being’ can be
supported by scientific evidence from monographs or pharmacopoeias. Whereas specific
indications should be supported by specific scientific evidence such as results of clinical studies,
or systematic reviews (refer to table 6 below).
Table 6: Levels of evidence generally required to support sub-types of scientific
indications
Scientific indication Evidence required to support indication
Non-specific Descriptive studies, case series or reports of relevant expert committees.

indication Reference texts, such as pharmacopoeias or monographs, or other
evidence-based reference texts, may be provided to support non-specific
indications.
Specific indication You must hold scientific evidence to support the specific indication. Such
as
• Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials with
randomisation; OR
• Evidence obtained from well-designed analytical studies preferably
from more than one centre or research group, including
epidemiological cohort and case-control studies; OR
• Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or without
intervention, including within country and between country
population studies.
Sponsors must ensure they are compliant with any requirements relating to
the use of a permitted indication as included in Therapeutic Goods
(Permissible Indications) Determination.
Vitamin or mineral supplementation claims are only permitted where the
recommended daily dose of the medicine provides at least 25% of the
Recommended Dietary Intake (RDI) for that vitamin or mineral. The RDI in this
context refers to the Australian RDI. If there is no Australian RDI for a vitamin
or mineral, an RDI from another country may be used. Where vitamins or
minerals are the subject of other kinds of claims, the dose must be consistent
with the evidence to support the claim being made. Indications / claims should
not refer to the presence of vitamins or minerals unless they are present in the
recommended daily dose of the product to at least the level of 10% of the RDI,
unless there is evidence to support a therapeutic effect below this level.
V3.0 uary 2019
Choosing or deciding upon your scientific indication

Scientific indications are usually supported with clinical data from relevant human studies that
have likely undergone some scientific assessment or scrutiny. Due to this quantifiable scientific
research undertaken into their mode of action and/or health benefit, this evidence type is
appropriate to support efficacy for your listed medicine.
Scientific indications must not specify or refer to traditional paradigms.
The use of the term ‘clinically proven’ in scientific indication infers a level of certainty in the
implied health benefit associated with the listed medicine in that it has been clinically trialled
and proven to be effective. These terms are not acceptable unless supported unequivocally by
robustly designed, published peer-reviewed clinical trial(s) conducted on the actual medicine
being advertised, or an identical formulation and dose (as a minimum). The use of the terms
‘clinical’, ‘clinically’, ‘scientifically’ coupled with ‘trialled’ or ‘tested’ implies a higher level of
certainty associated with the health benefit of your medicine and unless matched by well-
designed clinical studies on your specific medicine, may mislead consumers about the
effectiveness of your medicine.
You must compare your indication with the quoted health benefit in your evidence identified
from scientific sources. Your indication will refer to the same clinically significant study
outcomes as that reported in the clinical study.
In selecting your scientific indication you should:
• ensure that the medicine’s therapeutic benefit is demonstrated by the clinical study
outcomes
• ensure that any claims you make from your medicine imply only the same level of certainty
in clinical effectiveness as that reported in clinical studies, for example ‘clinically proven to...’
compared to ‘may assist to...’

scientific indication
You should compile an evidence package demonstrating that you have conducted an objective,
comprehensive and transparent review of the literature relating to your indication/s. The
resulting evidence you hold should be of high quality and relevant to your medicine and
adequately demonstrate that all indications you make for your medicine are true, valid and not
misleading.
summary and filter evidence items to those that are credible and relevant to your medicine. You
are required to hold all the information contained within the relevant forms for your medicine
before listing it. Refer to the Appendix 1: How to use evidence package checklists for assistance
with the process. While presentation in this manner is not compulsory, it will expedite the
compliance review process, should your medicine be selected for an evidence compliance
review.
V3.0 uary 2019
Cross-evidence base medicine: What evidence do

you need to support your medicine with a
combination of traditional and scientific
indications?
A listed medicine can have a combination of scientific and traditional indications where:
• an ingredient in the medicine is supported by both scientific evidence and evidence of
traditional use (‘cross-evidence base ingredient’)
• the medicine contains both traditional and non-traditional ingredients with associated
traditional and scientific indications (‘cross-evidence base medicine’)
It is important that the indications for your listed medicine accurately describe the evidence
base for the indication. You are also required to have supportive evidence for all your traditional
and scientific indications. Refer to:
• Traditional indications: what evidence do you need to support your traditional indication?
• Scientific indications: what evidence do you need to support your scientific indication?
Cross-evidence base ingredient (scientific and traditional)

In cases where you have supportive evidence of traditional use and scientific evidence for an
ingredient, both scientific and traditional indications may be made for that ingredient.
Example: Indications for a ‘cross-evidence base ingredient’

A medicine contains Evening Primrose seed oil (EPO) with a high gamma-linolenic acid content.
Potential permitted indications included in ARTG (if supported by

evidence):
‘Traditionally used in Western herbal medicine to relieve symptoms of mild eczema/dermatitis’
Linked symptom indication: ‘Soothe/relieve skin inflammation’
‘Anti-inflammatory/relieve inflammation’
Potential indications on the medicine label

‘Evening primrose seed oil (EPO) has been used traditionally in western herbal medicine to relieve
symptoms of mild eczema, such as skin inflammation. Gamma-linolenic acid is a component in EPO
that has anti-inflammatory properties.’
If you are aware that there is conflicting evidence between the history of
traditional use and contemporary scientific evidence for your medicine, then it
is advisable to include a statement to this effect in any labelling and advertising
associated with the medicine, for example: ‘this traditional use is not supported
by scientific evidence’. This will ensure that the advertised information relating
to your medicine is truthful, valid and not misleading.
V3.0 uary 2019
Cross-evidence based medicine

A medicine with a mixture of scientific and traditional indications (mixed paradigm medicine)
with traditional and non-traditional ingredients requires scientific evidence to support the
scientific indications and evidence of tradition of use to support the traditional indications.
Where your medicine contains multiple ingredients, with some associated with scientific
indications and others with traditional indications, the kind of evidence supporting each
indication must be clearly communicated to the consumer.
Evidence may refer to a formulation or an ingredient of the medicine. Indications must only
refer to entire formulations or specific combination of ingredients for which the evidence is held.
When evidence supports a health benefit for one or more ingredients in the medicine (but not
the medicine as a whole) indications must include this information.
Example: An indication for a cross evidence base medicine

A medicine that contains Echinacea purpurea and ascorbic acid (vitamin C).
Potential permitted indications in the ARTG (if supported by evidence):

‘Traditionally used in Western herbal medicine to enhance/improve/promote immune system
function’
‘Maintain/support immune system health’
Potential indications on the medicine label

‘This medicine has been formulated from traditional and modern ingredients for a healthy immune
system function. Echinacea purpurea has been traditionally used in Western herbal medicine to
promote immune system function. Vitamin C supports immune system health’.

indication for your cross-evidence based medicine
You should compile an evidence summary demonstrating that you have conducted an objective,
comprehensive and transparent review of the literature relating to your indication/s. The
resulting evidence you hold must be relevant to your medicine, be of high quality and adequately
demonstrate that all indications claimed for your medicine are true, valid and not misleading.
summary and filter evidence items to those that are credible and relevant to your medicine. You
are required to hold all the information contained within the relevant forms for your medicine
before listing it. Refer to the Appendix 1: How to use evidence package checklists for assistance
with the process. While presentation in this manner is not compulsory, it will expedite the
compliance review process, should your medicine be selected for an evidence compliance
review.
V3.0 uary 2019
Part B: Further technical guidance

Part B of this guide provides additional technical information on specific subjects and clinical
issues relating to listed medicines. Additionally, case studies are provided for greater clarity of
particular technical issues, such as indications relating to biomarkers, nutritional
supplementation and weight loss.
Equivalency of ingredient, preparation, dosage and dosage

form between the evidence and your medicine
The active ingredient should be well characterised in the evidence supporting your indication.
Preparations used in the evidence should contain the same ingredient preparation and dosage
form as your medicine.
In the case of indications based on vitamins, minerals, nutrients or known therapeutically active
components of herbs, this involves careful consideration of the dose, route of administration and
dosage regimen employed in the available scientific literature. In order for a piece of evidence to
be relevant to your indication, all these factors should closely resemble that intended for the
medicine.
Evidence that relates to a herb or herbal substance, the species (and subspecies if applicable),
plant part, method of preparation and processing, the equivalent dry weight and the dose of
active component used should be consistent with that of the herb or herbal substance in the
medicine. If the processing used to prepare a particular herbal product is different to that used
in the literature, you will need to hold evidence that the chemical profile of the resulting active
ingredient(s) is not substantially different from the active ingredient used in the evidence to
support your indication. Unfortunately, many trials inadequately describe or characterise the
composition of the herbal treatment. Even when the herbal ingredient is standardised to known
active therapeutic components or marker compounds, there can be variation in the
concentration of other components in the herbal extract for example that may result in different
pharmacological activity in vivo.
Other characteristics of medicines used in clinical trials may also impact on relevance to your
proposed indication. For example, modified release dosage forms of a medicine designed for
slow or delayed release of an active ingredient may not be relevant to support indications claims
that imply health outcomes that are achieved rapidly (for example: ‘for the rapid relief of fast
acting formula to relieve pain’).
Scientific studies
Study populations
As indicated in Part A of this guidance, only human studies are considered sufficient as primary
evidence to support indications for your listed medicine. Studies used to justify the scientific
indications for your medicine should be conducted in populations that are representative of, or
can reasonably be extrapolated to the general Australian population.
Relevance of the study population

The health status of the study population should be representative of the target population for
your medicine. Many listed medicines are used by healthy individuals. Data collected from study
populations with non-serious disorders and in situations where a continuum of health and
disease exists, such as individuals in early disease states, can influence the relevance of the
evidence for your indication.
V3.0 uary 2019
In general, data obtained from studies with participants who have serious diseases, conditions
or ailments cannot be extrapolated to a healthy population and, as such, are not relevant
evidence to support an indication for a listed medicine.
However, in circumstances where a positive modulation of a health benefit is noted in a diseased
study population, it may be possible to use these clinical outcomes to provide secondary
evidentiary support for your indication.
Justifying the differences between study and target population

When you use clinical studies that employ specific study population groups (for example:
subjects with a disease) rather than the target population group for your indication (for
example: the general healthy population), you should provide an evidence-based justification.
This process should consider biological factors as well as environmental and behavioural factors
including the influence of health practitioner intervention which may differ between healthy and
unhealthy populations.
In vitro studies or non-clinical data can provide additional justification to support the outcomes
of the primary clinical study using diseased populations. Data generated from diseased study
participants could be used to demonstrate that the active ingredients have positive
pharmacological effects; however such data may not be appropriate to support an indication
that is intended to be used by healthy people. You should also consider the mechanism of action
of the medicine or ingredient and whether it is applicable to the general healthy population. The
pathophysiological changes in a disease population may result in the ability of a particular
ingredient or medicine to be effective. The same result may not be achieved in a general healthy
population as it may be dependent on pathophysiological changes associated with the diseased
population. Further, any favourable modulation is likely to be dose-dependent; therefore
consideration should be given to the effect, if the dose requires modification.
Target sub-populations of the general Australian population

When an indication is directed towards a specific subgroup of the population (for example:
elderly or pregnant women), it needs to be supported by evidence derived from the same
subgroup of the population. The results from studies of target specific subgroups are not
relevant to the general population. For example, clinical studies that use females as the
treatment group are not relevant to the general population.
Table 7 provides examples of the characteristics of study populations that are relevant to the
target population.
V3.0 uary 2019
Table 7: Characteristics of study populations that are relevant to the target population
Indication Relevant population
Helps increase weight loss when Male and female participants aged 18-65 years; generally
used in conjunction with a healthy population with BMI 25-30 kg/m2 socio-culturally
calorie or kilojoule controlled similar to the Australian population.
diet and physical activity or
exercise
Relieve pain Male and female participants aged 18-65 years; generally
healthy population with a range of painful (non-serious)
conditions.
Relieves cough in children Male and female participants aged 2-12 years; generally
healthy population with cough associated with a range of
(non-serious) conditions.
Maintains bone strength Male and female participants aged 18-65 years; generally
healthy population; dietary and lifestyle pattern similar to the
Australian population.
Study duration
Relevant studies should be of appropriate duration to validate a health benefit included in an
indication. Each study should be long enough to clearly demonstrate the health benefit. The
appropriate duration of studies depends on the nature of the health benefit. If an indication
refers to a short-term benefit such as acute pain relief, trials of several hours duration may be
adequate. Conversely, for indications where long-term benefits are implied, studies must be of
sufficient duration to establish a sustained response that is likely to be meaningful. This is
particularly important for indications relating to maintenance of health or risk reduction, and
those that produce favourable modulation of body weight, as the body’s homeostatic processes
may reduce early gains. Therefore, studies assessing cardiovascular risk factors, weight, or
changes in muscle mass or bone strength that are not long enough to establish a sustained
clinical benefit are not relevant.
For these reasons, the duration of each study is an important factor and must be considered
when assessing the body of evidence relevant to an indication. The minimum relevant study
duration should be determined and justified in relation to the relevant indication, and all studies
of insufficient duration should be omitted from the primary analysis.
CASE STUDY 1: Study duration for pain relief

A listed herbal medicine containing willow bark (Salix alba) has the scientific indication: ‘Helps
relieve mild joint pain temporarily’.
A clinical trial reports a long-term pain relief effect in subjects suffering osteoporosis and joint
pain beginning 2 weeks after the initiation of treatment.
The above indication is not supported by the outcomes of this study.
V3.0 uary 2019
CASE STUDY 2: Study duration for weight loss

A listed herbal medicine has the scientific indication: ‘Helps increase weight loss’.
Evidence held to support the indication was a clinical trial of 6 weeks duration.
A reasonable timeframe to achieve a significant degree of weight loss is six months (clinical
significance). After about six months, the rate of weight loss usually declines as weight plateaus,
and some regain is common [Franz (2007)]. Shorter studies fail to demonstrate the full benefit
of a treatment, including the ability to sustain weight loss for a longer period. Therefore, studies
will generally be at least six months duration to be considered relevant to indications relating to
weight loss must be of at least six months duration.
The above indication is not supported by the outcomes of this study.
Study outcomes
Primary and secondary clinical study outcomes

Ideally the health benefit of your medicine will be included in the study as a primary outcome
with an adequate sample size. This ensures that the study is sufficiently powered to detect a
benefit that is statistically and clinically significant. However, inclusion of the health benefit as a
secondary outcome may be acceptable provided that the observed result is shown to be
statistically and clinically significant.
Evidence that describes an effect on a biological process generally does not contribute to the
evidence base for an indication that refers to a clinical outcome. Such data may, however, be
useful in demonstrating biological plausibility of a clinical outcome.
Evidence held to support indications referring to beneficial effects on biological or clinical
targets should directly relate to the target described. Evidence relating to a particular clinical
outcome, physiological process or health benefit cannot be drawn from data describing different
clinical outcomes, physiological processes or health benefits.
CASE STUDY 3: Duration versus symptomatic relief

A clinical study that assesses the effect of an ingredient on the duration of the common cold does
not support an indication that describes symptomatic relief of the common cold. Therefore, the
indication can only refer to reducing the duration of a cold and not to relief of symptoms.
Assessing the significance of study outcomes

Attrition rates (drop out rates)
Attrition rates are commonly high in studies that evaluate health gains that are modest and
require long-term commitment. High attrition can introduce serious bias (attrition bias) into
these studies because the reasons for non-completion vary across initially randomised groups.
High attrition rates may also diminish the general applicability of the treatment to the Australian
population. The resulting data from a high attrition study should be interpreted with caution.
An Intent-To-Treat (ITT) analysis, in which outcomes of the original randomised groups are
compared, provides a means of accounting for the effects of dropouts. In an ITT analysis,
dropouts from the study are included in the analysis. When an ITT is performed, all efforts
should be made to obtain outcome measurements from dropouts at the end of the study. In cases
where this is not possible, baseline measurements of study parameters should be carried
forward (for example, for a study outcome related to weight loss, body weight recorded at the
beginning of treatment would be the same at the end of the study). A treatment effect
demonstrated in an ITT analysis underestimates the efficacy of the treatment but may be a good
V3.0 uary 2019
reflection of effectiveness under real world conditions [Koepsell & Weiss (2003)]. When

dropouts are not accounted for in the analysis of results, attrition bias (exclusion bias) may

result.
Number of participants (power calculations)

It is important that studies enrol sufficient numbers of participants to detect a significant and

reliable treatment effect. The number of participants required to be reasonably certain of a

reliable result needs to account for the degree of health benefit, the variability of individual

results and the number of participants dropping out of the study (attrition rate). As a

consequence, studies may need to include larger numbers of participants to account for a high

attrition rate.

How many patients are needed for a clinical trial?

An essential part of critically appraising a clinical study is to determine if a
sufficient number of study participants were i ncluded in the trial in order to
reliably detect and measure e ffects of the i ntervention.
This is described as the study’s ‘power’. The l arger the number of participants,
the greater the p
otential statistical power.
The number of study participants required for a s
tudy to demonstrate c linical
significance depends on several factors: the study aim and design, the type and
sensitivity of the p
rimary end-point, how the data will be a
nalysed, the
significance l evel and allocation ratio of treatment to control as well as the
anticipated standard deviation or the anticipated results in the control group.
There are many published resources available in which these factors are
explained including good and bad practices for sample s
ize c
alculation.

Often high quality clinical studies have been designed to provide meaningful statistical

calculations. Study clinicians have considered the factors that are important to achieve the
desired outcome and have designed the study accordingly. If you choose to use a clinical study to

support a scientific indication, you are not expected to perform power calculations, but to

consider any limitations of the statistical calculations that the study authors have reported,

including the number of drop outs and the impact this may have on the reported study

outcomes.
Appropriate statistical methods must be used to compare the effects of treatment between

groups, and to compare the number of individuals achieving a clinically significant result in each

group. The analysis should also account for any potential confounders. An Intent-to-Treat (ITT)

analysis should also be performed, particularly when attrition rates are high. Previously

unplanned analyses undertaken after the completion of a trial (post-hoc analyses) are to be

avoided as they are unlikely to have been considered in power calculations and study design.

An indication can only be justified when the available evidence supports the described health

outcome. The balance of evidence should support an outcome that is:

statistically significant; and

clinically significant (or meaningful to the consumer).


V3.0 uary 2019

Statistical significance (p-value)

When considering a study result, it must be unlikely (probability of less than 5%) that the
observed health benefit could have been a chance occurrence. The ‘p’ value indicates the
probability that an effect is due to chance, assuming there is no real difference between
intervention and control groups. Therefore, a ‘p’ value of less than 0.05 indicates with acceptable
certainty that an observed effect or health benefit is unlikely to be due to chance.
Confidence intervals provide an alternative measure of statistical certainty. Confidence intervals
of 95% are commonly employed to show the range within which the true outcome value could
be expected to occur with 95% certainty. When 95% confidence intervals are generated for
primary study outcome measures, the 95% confidence intervals of the intervention and exposed
groups must not overlap.
However, statistical significance does not provide information about the degree of benefit
produced or whether it is likely to be meaningful.
Clinical significance
Not all statistically significant differences are clinically significant (Berry (1986), Sackett etal.
(1985), Levitt (1981)). A statistically significant outcome indicates only that there is likely to be
a relationship between intervention and outcome. Clinical significance is more difficult to define
but is commonly considered to represent a degree of benefit that is worthwhile in real life to
justify intervention, and may consider factors such as cost, side effects and inconvenience.
A number of general principles can provide guidance about clinical significance. For listed
medicines, it might be regarded as a degree of benefit that is meaningful to the consumer. The
number of participants required to detect a clinically significant difference between treatment
and control groups depends on the type and level of health benefit, the standard deviation of the
health effect, the significance level (p-value) and statistical power of the study and the type of
hypothesis being tested.
In general terms, most research studies contain 0.8 sample power, meaning that there is an 80%
probability of finding a significant difference with a given sample size, if a real difference truly
exists and having excluded the role of chance. High quality studies will recruit many more
subjects than required in order to maintain adequate numbers in the trial even when there are
drop outs recorded throughout the study. The meaningfulness of a predetermined ‘significant
clinical benefit’ may then vary between patients depending on a number of factors such as state
of disease, comorbidities, personal circumstances, and alternative options for treatment.
Judgements about clinical significance are often made by experienced clinicians within a context
of ongoing monitoring and supervised care. Listed medicines, however, are freely available to
consumers and may not involve practitioner intervention or supervision. Determining the
clinical significance of health outcomes associated with listed medicines is particularly difficult
for the following reasons:
• Listed medicines are self-selected by consumers from a wide variety of backgrounds, with
varied expectations and variable educational and financial resources.
• The health outcomes provided by listed medicines may be modest, not readily apparent,
and/or achieved over long periods of time.
• Healthy consumers may be satisfied with smaller gains in health than individuals with a pre-
existing condition.
Notwithstanding these factors, consideration should be given to the likely significance
(meaningfulness) of an observed health outcome to the intended target population. Table 8
provides a useful approach to the assessment of clinical significance for listed medicines.
V3.0 uary 2019
Table 8: Approach to the assessment of clinical significance for listed medicines
Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor
Clinical Meaningful health Meaningful health Impact on target Unlikely to be

impact benefit very likely benefit likely to be population meaningful
to be achieved by achieved by uncertain-health
consumers consumers benefit possible
Ethnic, cultural and social factors

The characteristics of study participants must also reflect the characteristics and lifestyle of the
target population for the medicine. Consideration of genetic, ethnic and socio-cultural factors is
important when assessing the relevance of scientific evidence used to substantiate indications as
differences in any of these may result in discrepancies between results reported in study data
and expected results in an Australian population. The Australian population is culturally and
ethnically diverse. Scientific data obtained from studies conducted in homogenous ethnic
populations may be limited in their relevance to the general Australian population. Factors such
as diet, lifestyle, support networks and religious beliefs may all impact on the study findings.
Your evidence summary should include a justification to illustrate that the results derived from
clinical studies that employ homogenous ethnic study populations are relevant to the general
Australian target population, and therefore adequate supportive evidence for your medicine.
Relevance of context for your evidence

It is important to recognise that the body of evidence relevant to your indication is generally
derived under conditions that are more restrictive than those experienced by consumers of
listed medicines in ‘real-world’ situations. In research studies, tight control of experimental
conditions and intensive monitoring are important in controlling for confounding across
treatment and placebo groups. Studies conducted in this way are ideal for estimating potential
efficacy but may overestimate effectiveness within its target population.
Studies that are less prescriptive may provide useful adjunctive information about ‘real-world’
medicine effectiveness. However, such studies may not accurately predict potential medicine
efficacy, as the results of such studies may be subject to bias due to differences in environmental
conditions, participant characteristics and compliance.
Provided that measures are taken to ensure that the characteristics of your medicine, its
indications, and its target population are consistent with the supportive evidence base, well
controlled efficacy studies are considered the ‘gold standard’ for supporting health benefits
associated with your listed medicine. However, in situations where real-life effectiveness is
likely to be significantly less than that observed in trials, the expected result in the general
population should still be clinically meaningful.
For indications that imply an ability of a listed medicine to assist with weight loss, the same level
of evidence (that is, relevance, high quality, statistical & clinical significance and balance of the
evidence) is required as for any other indication for a listed medicine. Specifically:
• the selected indications should be consistent with the evidence held to support such
indications
• the design and quality of the study should allow accurate conclusions of study outcomes to
be drawn
• the study aims and the limitations identified by the study authors should be taken into
account when developing your indication
V3.0 uary 2019
• the clinical trial duration needs to be sufficiently long to support indications that refer to
long term benefits, for example: sustainable weight loss is greater than 6 months; and
• the study should be carried out in a study group representative of the population group for
which the indication is made. Any extrapolation of results obtained from subjects outside the
target population group must be appropriately justified.
The use of qualifiers relating to the biological or clinical target of an indication restricts the
applicability of the indication to a specific type of a condition or process (such as mild pain
rather than pain more broadly) and narrows the relevant evidence base.
CASE STUDY 4: The use of qualifiers to limit the health benefit

A listed herbal medicine containing Actaea racemosa (Black cohosh) has the scientific specific
indication: ‘Relieve symptoms of menopause’.
This indication may imply the relief of all symptoms associated with menopause (that is: hot
flushes, insomnia, irritability, anxiety, vaginal dryness and so son).
The evidence base to support the indication using the same preparation and dose of Actaea
racemosa reports a significant reduction in the frequency and intensity of hot flushes only. The
effect on other menopause symptoms and signs were not examined. A more appropriate limiting
indication that is supported by the evidence is: ‘Relieve hot flushes associated with menopause’.
Study design and methods

Studies should clearly document aims and methods. Study design (including the presence or
absence of randomisation and blinding), measurement techniques and statistical methods must
be clearly outlined. Inclusion and exclusion criteria and the baseline characteristics of study
participants should be described. The baseline distribution of potential confounders must be
shown and any potential confounding factors must be considered and accounted for during the
analysis. In addition, any limitations and ability to apply the results to the general population
should be discussed.
Intervention and control groups (study trial arms)

All participants enrolled in a clinical trial are considered to be derived from a common
population and may be allocated to control (placebo) or intervention (treatment) groups.
Randomisation of participants to intervention and control arms of the trial helps reduce innate
inter-group differences and potential bias. The method of randomisation must be clearly
described so as to enable the reviewer to assess the possibility of un-blinding. Baseline
characteristics of treatment and control groups should always be documented to establish
equivalence in key areas such as age, weight, diet and other factors that may contribute to non-
treatment differences in health benefit between groups.
Ideally, trials should be conducted under conditions where the only difference between groups
is that one is exposed to the intervention (treatment), while the other is not. This is often
achieved in controlled trials, but is less likely to occur in cohort studies and case-control studies.
In these methodologies, the presence of potential confounders and study biases may impact on
study results and must be considered and accounted for in the analysis of the study. When
confounders exist within a study, they lessen the study’s quality and the degree of confidence in
the reported study outcomes. Under these circumstances, care should be taken in describing the
indication.
V3.0 uary 2019
Reference to secondary methods of assessment

In some clinical studies, the study authors may refer to secondary methods to assess study
outcomes (for example, visual analogue scales as a method to subjectively assess study
outcomes (pain, hunger etc.)). While this reference to secondary methods is appropriate, it is
important that these methods are accurately validated, to ensure the results can be reproduced.
The characteristics of the secondary methods are often reported in other studies or publications,
and it is this original research that validates the scales.
If your scientific evidence relies on secondary methods of analysing study outcomes, then these
original studies will also need to be cited and provided to the TGA on request.
CASE STUDY 5: Reference to secondary methods of assessment

A clinical study was provided to support the indication: ‘Reduce hunger/appetite’.
The supporting clinical study used a visual analogue scale (VAS) secondary assessment method
[reference: Silverstone et al. (1981)] to determine the changes in four parameters associated
with the assessment of appetite (‘hunger’, ‘thoughts of food’, ‘urge to eat’, and ‘fullness of
stomach’).
However, the method of determining appetite in the clinical study that administered VAS at
thirty day intervals, was inconsistent with the method reported by Silverstone et al. (1981),
which administered the VAS at hourly intervals.
As the changes to this secondary method of assessment (VAS) were not appropriately validated
in the clinical study, the study does not support the indication.
Indications relating to biomarkers
The Therapeutic Goods (Permissible Indications) Determination only includes

low level biomarker claims relating to general health, for example:
‘Aid/assist/helps glucose/sugar/carbohydrate metabolism’; ‘Helps
maintain/support healthy cholesterol’.
Literature used to support low level biomarker indications should demonstrate therapeutic
effect in populations representative of, or can reasonably be extrapolated to, the healthy general
Australian population. This is difficult to substantiate when evidence is derived from a diseased
population. The extrapolation of study findings from a diseased study population to the healthy
population can be problematic and potentially misleading. A small change in a given biological
surrogate may be associated with negligible biological dysfunction and minimal increase in risk
of serious forms of disease, whereas larger changes are more likely to be associated with
pathophysiological processes and an increased risk of overt illness which requires health
practitioner involvement.
If your evidence uses study populations with baseline biomarker levels that lie outside normal
healthy levels it is unlikely to be considered relevant to support indications relating to low-level
biomarker indications for the healthy Australian population.
In addition, indications should only target healthy individuals with biomarker levels that lie
within the normal healthy range.
V3.0 uary 2019
The assessed listed-AUSTL (A)] pathway may provide an option for listed

medicines to make biomarker indications above those included in the

permitted indications list, when the efficacy of the medicine has been assessed

by the TGA. Refer to
Assessed listed medicines evidence guidelines
for more

information.
Because of the continuum between health and disease, all biomarker and risk reduction

indications should include a disclaimer that recommends consumers consult a healthcare

practitioner if they are concerned about their health status.

Indications that refer to the m
odulation of biomarker levels cannot be
supported by evidence of traditional use.

Indications relating to weight loss

Indications relating to weight loss or management require supporting scientific evidence that

demonstrates that the initial weight loss is meaningful to the consumer (that is, clinically

significant) and can be maintained after the initial weight loss period.

In Australia, registered medicines targeting obese populations are required to demonstrate an

absolute reduction in weight loss of at least 10% over one year (EMA (2007)). This degree of

weight loss may not be desirable or appropriate for mildly overweight individuals. It is

commonly accepted that a loss of 5% of initial body weight over six months is likely to represent

a clinically significant degree of weight loss and is considered a minimum degree of weight loss

required for listed medicines that are indicated for weight loss. Lesser degrees of weight loss are

unlikely to be clinically significant and therefore generally considered inadequate to support

indications associated with weight loss. It is possible for lifestyle modification alone to give

similar weight loss results (Franz et al. (2007), Wu (2009), Sacks (2009), Rose and Day (1990)).

In weight loss trials the control group commonly achieved some degree of weight loss due to

changes in lifestyle, such as dietary intake and exercise. Evidence supporting weight loss

indications claimed for listed medicines should demonstrate that the degree of weight loss is

meaningful and unlikely to be attained through diet and exercise alone.

Rose and Day (1990) postulated that a mean reduction in BMI of approximately 1 kg/m
2 (one

BMI unit) across a population could make significant impacts on the prevalence of obesity and

overweight individuals within the population. A mean body weight loss of 3% is likely to be

equivalent to a mean loss of one BMI unit in the population enrolled in a clinical trial. However,

the clinical study population will often include obese individuals which are different to a healthy

target population.

Obese people expend more energy for a given activity because of their larger body mass.

Therefore, for the same level of dietary energy and physical activity, the reduction in body

weight will be different for obese (BMI >30 kg/m
2) and overweight individuals

(BMI 25-30 kg/m
2). This difference may be negligible for small increments in BMI but is likely to

become increasingly significant as BMI increases.

Thus the degree of weight loss is likely to be different when comparing overweight and obese

individuals when given the same treatment protocol. As such, studies that include obese

participants with a BMI >30 kg/m 2 cannot be generalised to otherwise healthy overweight

individuals.

V3.0 uary 2019

It follows therefore, that in non-randomised controlled studies, the treatment group

(BMI 25-29.9 kg/m
2) should show at least a 5% greater weight loss than the placebo group to

counter for potential confounding. There must be a reasonable chance that meaningful weight

loss will be achieved in consumers investing in the medicine. Single mean values may be

misleading and it is important that the effect of an ingredient or medicine represents a

consistent effect across the whole target population. At least 50% of participants in the

treatment group must achieve a loss of at least 5% of initial body weight, making it ‘more likely

than not’ that consumers will achieve a clinically significant benefit from appropriate use of the

medicine.
For each clinical study used to support weight loss indications, the meaningfulness of the

observed effect to the general Australian population should also be assessed. Study outcomes

that report statistical significant changes in weight loss parameters must also demonstrate

clinical significance, or provide a meaningful health benefit to the consumer of your medicine.

Weight loss indications and scientific evidence

In general, for indications relating to weight loss in overweight individuals
(BMI 25-30 kg/m2), clinical significance (that is a health benefit that is
meaningful to the consumer) is only achieved if supporting scientific evidence
demonstrates:
a mean overall loss of at least 5% initial body weight in the t
reatment
group, which is at least 3% greater (for RC T) OR 5% greater ( for n
on-RCT)

than that of the p
lacebo group. In both cases the d ifference must be
statistically significant (p<0.05); and
at least 50% of participants in t he treatment group must have achieved a
loss of at least 5% of initial body weight; a
nd
the s
tudy duration is a minimum of 6 months.
CASE STUDY 6: Primary and secondary clinical outcomes

A clinical study reporting the ability of Caralluma fimbriata to reduce hunger (primary
outcome), does not support a w eight loss indication, as only studies that directly assess weight
loss can be c
onsidered relevant to the evidence base f or a weight loss indication.
Changes in fat metabolism, thermogenesis, metabolic rate or reduction in hunger do not
necessarily translate into weight loss and evidence s
upporting these indications cannot be
extrapolated to support an indication for weight loss.
Table 9 provides examples of terms that are often related to, or used to convey weight loss that

should not be substituted for the term weight loss in an indication. The evidence should support

your indication, thus if your evidence refers to the reduction of hunger, then your indication

could refer to reducing hunger, without extending this to weight loss or management.


V3.0 uary 2019

Table 9: Terms that should not be substituted for the term ‘weight loss’ in an indication
Metabolism Body shape and Weight-related Appetite

composition
Increased metabolic rate
Fat loss
Weight Appetite suppression

maintenance
Enhanced metabolism Increased muscle Enhanced satiety

mass Weight control

Enhanced fat metabolism
Fasting
Cellulite Weight
Thermogenesis management
Slimming
Increased calorie burning

Indications relating to nutrient supplementation
If a l isted medicine s tates that it is intended to supplement a named nutrient, it
must provide a t least 25% of the Recommended Dietary Intake ( RDI),
Adequate Intake ( AI) or nutrient reference value for that nutrient and the

nutrient should be i n a form that is available for absorption by the b ody.
Supplementation non-specific indications

Non-specific supplementation indications are those commonly linked to medicines that only

contain vitamins, minerals or nutritional substances as ingredients.

Statements relating to supplementation with vitamins, minerals or other essential nutrients (for

example: a source of calcium) that imply a general health benefit (such as the maintenance of

good health) are often supported by high-quality and credible scientific literature, such as

internationally recognised pharmacopoeias or monographs, descriptive studies, case series or

reports of relevant expert committees.

Providing the listed medicine provides the required amount of the nutrient, vitamin or mineral;

reference texts, such as pharmacopoeias or monographs, or other evidence-based reference

texts, are sufficient to support non-specific claims.

Supplementation specific indications

When the supplementation claim is linked to a specific therapeutic benefit, then additional

scientific evidence is required to support the claim.

The salt of the nutrient/mineral/vitamins should be in a form that is readily absorbed by the

body. The dosage directions for the medicine should ideally optimise the effect of the medicine

(for example, take with food). For each nutrient, availability from non-food sources depends on

the dosage, transport mechanism, age, gender, deficiency status and whether the supplements

are taken with a meal (for example: Calcium citrate is 2.5 times more bioavailable (rate and

extent of availability in plasma) than calcium carbonate when taken with a meal (Heller et al

(2001)). Where vitamins, minerals or other nutrients are the subject of other indications, the

dose must be consistent with the evidence to support the indication.


V3.0 uary 2019

All indications for nutrient-containing medicines, whether implicit or explicit, must be

appropriate for listed medicines. In general the indication must not refer to serious forms of a
disease, condition, ailment or defect. Often the term ‘dietary’ is used as a qualifier to limit
potential references to serious diseases and nutrient deficiencies.
Examples
‘Helps to prevent dietary (state vitamin/mineral/nutrient) deficiency’
‘Helps enhance/promote/increase absorption of dietary (state vitamin/mineral/nutrient)’
V3.0 uary 2019
Appendix 1: How to use evidence package

checklists
The following guidance assists you complete the evidence package checklists (provided on the

TGA website) for the indications for your listed medicine.

List of checklists
Checklist title Applicable for: Applicable for:

Scientific evidence Evidence of
traditional use
Checklist 1: Evidence package cover page
Yes Yes
Checklist 2: Evidence search strategy
Yes Yes
Checklist 3: Evidence of traditional use filter
No Yes
Guidance to filter your evidence to identify those

items that are credible, relevant and of high quality

Checklist 4: Scientific evidence filter
Yes No
Guidance to filter your evidence to identify those

items that are credible, relevant and of high quality

Checklist 5:Evidence of traditional use summary
No Yes
Checklist 6: Evidence of scientific use summary
Yes No
The evidence which supports an indication for each ingredient is drawn from evidence of

traditional use, or from other scientific research into the ingredient. Refer to the Evidence

Guidelines for information on type of indications and evidence required to support them.

An indication may be related to one or more active ingredients, or to a fixed combination of

active ingredients. For each indication-ingredient relationship, you need to complete the

appropriate checklists to document:
your search for evidence

the findings from your search

the credibility of the evidence you wish to use to support the indication or claim

the relevance and consistency of the evidence, indication and medicine

Your evidence package should include a summary of the evidence you hold supporting all the

indications of your medicine and attached copies of evidence items.

If you have a traditional indication with evidence of traditional use
You are advised to include checklists 1, 2, 3 and 5 in your evidence package.

If you have a scientific indication with scientific evidence
You are advised to include checklists 1, 2, 4 and 6 in your evidence package.

If you have a both evidence of traditional use and scientific evidence
You are advised to include all checklists (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) in your evidence package.


V3.0 uary 2019

Checklist 1: Evidence package cover page

Complete all sections of this document and attach to the front of your evidence package.
1a: Identification of listed medicine and sponsor details

Provide:
• the medicine name
• the medicine’s AUST L number [when this has been assigned to the medicine - upon
completion of your medicine application via the TGA’s eBusiness services (eBs)]
• your name; and
• your contact details (as recorded in eBs).
1b: Listed medicine details

Provide general information on your medicine:
• dosage form, for example: tablet, capsule, oral liquid
• route of administration, for example: oral or topical
• intended population, for example: general, children, adults, elderly
• recommended dose unit, for example: 2 tablets
• maximum recommended daily dose (MRDD), for example: 6 tablets per day
• directions for use, for example: ‘take 2 tablets before a meal’
• duration of use (where relevant): ‘take for 2 weeks’; and
• cautions and contraindications, for example: ‘not suitable for use in children’.
1c: Listed medicine active ingredients

For each active ingredient in your listed medicine, provide:
• the Australian Approved Name (AAN) for the ingredient
• plant/animal part (where relevant), for example: herb, flower, rhizome
• preparation (where relevant), include all extraction details:
– number of extraction steps
– solvent used
– concentration
– equivalent weights; and
– any other relevant details.
For example: ‘dried powder’, ‘5:1 extract (in 25% ethanol) equivalent to 1g fresh leaf’.
• equivalent dose of substance per unit dose, for example: 500 mg per dose; and
• maximum recommended daily dose (MRDD), for example: 2 g per day.
V3.0 uary 2019
1d: Listed medicine indication details

For each indication, you should assign a reference number (for evidence package) and record:
• the indication (health benefit of the medicine). Where the indication is traditional, the
indication should use terminology appropriate to the traditional medical paradigm
• the active ingredient to which the indication relates to (as provided in 1c); and
• indicate whether the indication is traditional or scientific
For medicines with more than one active ingredient, evidence to support the indications can be
for the formulated medicine or be derived for each individual active ingredient.
A single active ingredient medicine can have more than one indication, for example: a medicine
formulated with a single active ingredient might have two indications attributed to it: ‘Decrease
nausea’ and ‘Promote healthy digestion’. You should hold evidence for each of the medicine’s
indications.
1e: Evidence package details

Use this table to confirm that your evidence package includes:
• a completed cover page (checklist 1)
• scientific and/or traditional evidence search strategy (checklist 2)
• evidence filter for your traditional indication (checklist 3); and/or
• scientific filter for your scientific indication (checklist 4)
• summary of evidence of traditional use for your traditional indication (checklist 5); and/or
• summary of scientific evidence for your scientific indication (checklist 6)
• copies of supporting evidence for your indication (as listed in your evidence summary )
attached: and
• an indication of the number of attachments and the total number of pages in the evidence
package.
Next step
Complete checklist 2 to record your literature research.
V3.0 uary 2019
Checklist 2: Evidence search strategy

You should undertake a literature search for your scientific or traditional indication. The
Australian Regulatory Guide for Complementary Medicines (ARGCM) provides guidance on
performing a literature search. It is recommended that the help of a specialist librarian is sought,
particularly when searching non-English databases, when conducting the literature review.
Use checklist 2 to document the outcomes of your search of all items of evidence associated with
your medicine. You should complete a separate document for each indication for your medicine.
Add as many rows to the table as you need to record all evidence sources identified. This
information is important to demonstrate that you have conducted an objective, comprehensive,
transparent and reproducible review of the literature relating to your indication.
The quality of evidence will determine the nature of any claim and the wording that can
truthfully be used. You are encouraged to refer to credible online sources, such as other
regulatory authorities and other reputable agencies. New and unpublished data may be relevant,
but they must be assessed within the context of the existing published body of knowledge.
Selecting and combining terms is of fundamental importance in searching electronic databases.
You should document the search terms (online and within books) and databases you use and the
number of references retrieved.
As traditional indications refer to a tradition of use rather than efficacy, efficacy data is not
required (such as clinical trials or studies). However, it is important that the terms used to refer
to a health benefit in the evidence held are identical or equivalent to those used in an indication.
Include all references that you find: even those you may discard later because they are irrelevant
or poor quality. In particular include those references which do not support your proposed
indication to show that a balance of evidence approach has been considered. You may be
required to provide a justification to the TGA as to why this evidence was considered irrelevant.
The search must extend retrospectively for at least 10 years from the present day. Searches
should not be limited to English, but every effort must be made to obtain translations of key
references. Non-English language literature will need to be considered if this is a source of
significant scientific work. All publications appended to the final report must be in the English
language, or be a certified English transcript from the native language
Search strategy
Provide the following information in the table provided:
• Source searched:
– identifying bibliographic details
– exclude duplicate sources; and
– include any website links.
• Date range of search: applicable for scientific literature searches.
• Search terms: include key words and specific exclusion terms.
• Type of evidence: Indicate if the evidence is scientific (such as: random control trial,
evidence based text, Cochrane review) or evidence of traditional use (traditional
pharmacopoeia, materia medica).
V3.0 uary 2019
Table 10: Example of entries in the search strategy table:

Search strategy for evidence package
Source searched Date range of search Search terms Type of evidence
Medline 01/01/2003- Echinacea and common cold

Scientific: RCTs,

10/10/2012 non-clinical
NOT: influenza, flu
studies,
mechanistic
studies
British Herbal NA Echinacea species Traditional:

pharmacopoeia monograph
Next step
The items of evidence that you have collated through this process should be filtered in checklist

3 (evidence of traditional use) or checklist 4 (scientific evidence). The filtering process will

determine the relevance and quality of each evidence item. This should be completed for all

items of evidence.


V3.0 uary 2019

Checklist 3: Evidence of traditional use filter

Use this checklist for traditional non-specific (general) and specific indications. Complete the
checklist for each item of evidence.
Checklist 3 provides a filtering process to help you assess your item of evidence to determine:
• that the evidence supports a tradition of use for your indication
• the credibility of the item of evidence; and
• the relevance of the evidence to your medicine/indication.
The filter assists you reduce the number of evidence items to those that are credible and
relevant, or to those that you can justify their inclusion into your evidence summary.
If you wish to use evidence for several ingredients to support an indication, each ingredient
should be supported by evidence that meets the majority of checklist 3a.
3a Filter for evidence of traditional use
Evidence item
Provide the details of the item of evidence that you are assessing.
Part 1: Tradition of use

This section of the checklist aims to establish if the evidence supports a history of traditional use
(3 generations or 75 years) for your indication.
Your evidence of traditional use should refer to primary sources of evidence and you should
check if they are adequately referenced. Some literature items cite, comment on or build on
primary sources of evidence. If you use such an evidence item, you must locate the original or
primary source of evidence of traditional use so as to establish primary references. That is, is
find copies or quotations from the original documents cited in footnotes. If this is not possible
then include the footnotes in your evidence summary to clearly indicate that the textbook is
based on original historic records.
Where it is impossible to find the original reference that describes the traditional use, evidence
of traditional use may be supported by more recent references reporting the original tradition.
However, these references should provide enough information to support that your medicine is
consistent, as far as possible, with the one described in the original reference.
Part 2: Filter for credibility of evidence

This section of the checklist establishes whether the evidence item is from a credible source,
such as internationally recognised monographs and pharmacopoeias. The credibility of evidence
of traditional use may vary with the nature of the reference source, and the degree of clarity of
references to a health benefit.
Part 3: Filter for relevance of evidence

The available evidence should be directly relevant to the proposed indication and ingredient
characteristics (such as plant part and dose). This section of the checklist asks you questions
relating to specific concepts to determine the level of relevance of the item of evidence. This will
allow you to make an assessment on whether to include the item in your evidence summary.
You assess whether your item of evidence of traditional use is relevant by determining how
similar it is to your medicine/indication. You determine this by answering by selecting either
‘identical’, ‘similar’, ‘different’ or ‘unknown’ to the questions for each piece of evidence you hold.
V3.0 uary 2019
Indication
Your evidence should refer to the same specific health benefit (with the same meaning and
intent) as your medicine.
If your indication is a specific traditional indication, the evidence should support this specific
health benefit and context of use, for example: target population.
Evidence of traditional use may be derived from populations that do not closely resemble the
general Australian population (which is the target population for listed medicines in Australia).
Further, some traditional medicine paradigms may specifically exclude certain subgroups of the
populations from using a particular medicine (for example: children, pregnant women). Your
indication should reflect this evidence.
Active ingredient characterisation and traditional methods of formulation

The active ingredient should be clearly identified and characterised in the evidence, including:
• name:
– Latin binomial for herbal species; or
– correct scientific name (including relevant salt) for minerals, vitamins or other non-
herbal substances)
• plant part; and
• preparation and extraction method.
Route of administration
How similar to your medicine is the description of intended route of administration (for
example: inhalation as opposed to a chest rub) to that specified in the evidence?
Dosage
The dose, dosage form, dosage range and dosage frequency of the ingredient/medicine should
be consistent with your evidence and the composition and preparation of the medicine should
be consistent with the principles of the tradition about which the indication is made.
Duration of use
How similar to your medicine is the duration of use specified in the evidence, for example: long
term, short term?
Risks, cautions or contraindications

How similar to your medicine is the information regarding any risks, cautions or
contraindications (including identification of no known risks, cautions or contraindications) in
the evidence to those of your medicine?
For example: if the evidence refers to the ingredient being contraindicated for use in children,
your medicine should also reflect this restriction in use.
Assessment of evidence to support your indication

If you answer ‘yes’ and ‘identical’ to the majority of questions in checklist 3a, then your evidence
item is likely to have a history of traditional use, be credible and relevant to your medicine. Such
an item would be considered a primary source of evidence and can be used to support your
indication.
V3.0 uary 2019
If you answer ‘no’, ‘similar’ or ‘different or not specified’ to the majority of questions in checklist
3a, it is likely that the evidence does not support your indication and you should disregard it. If
you choose to include this item of evidence in your evidence package you should provide
justification as to why that item of evidence is included (see 3b).
3b Justification of evidence
It is recognised that it may be difficult to provide evidence for traditional indications that fulfil
all aspects of the credibility and relevance criteria.
Some sources of evidence may not include sufficient details to meet the majority of the relevance
and quality criteria in the traditional checklist filter (3a). In this situation, you should hold
several sources of evidence that meet most of the relevance criteria in the traditional checklist
and when these are combined, the collective source should provide all aspects of the evidence
for all concepts raised in the filter. That is the combined items of evidence should address data
gaps identified in 3a. This process allows you to use multiple sources of evidence of traditional
use to accurately support your traditional indication.
If the evidence summary table lists evidence items that are not relevant (and no justification has
been provided for their inclusion into your evidence summary), you may be asked for further
clarification as to why you have included evidence that appears irrelevant.
Traditional ingredient changes

Traditional ingredients or medicines which have been altered significantly in their constituent
profile from the classical traditional medicine on which the indication is based, further
information may be required to justify the alteration in order to substantiate their claimed
indication.
Next step
Once you have filtered your evidence to those references that are credible and relevant, or have
a justification for their inclusion in your evidence summary, then these references should be
included and summarised in Checklist 5: Summary table for evidence of traditional use.
V3.0 uary 2019
Checklist 4 Scientific evidence filter

Checklist 4 has been provided to assist you with the decision on which items of evidence are

relevant to your medicine and are of high-quality. Use this document to assess the relevance,

quality and balance of your scientific evidence.

During your search for evidence you may come across many different types of evidence from a

variety of different sources of literature and you must review the literature to collate high-

quality evidence that is relevant to the indication or medicine – known as ‘filtering’.

All indications based on scientific evidence must be supported by primary evidence, such as

clinical studies. The scientific uncertainties involved in extrapolating human data from animal

and in vitro studies limit their usefulness as an evidence base to support your indication. Non-

human and in vitro studies may, however, be used to support any discussion on biological

plausibility of a potential mode of action in humans.

Establishing the relevant evidence base for your indication is a critical step in the review of

evidence. This requires an assessment of the relevance of every item retrieved during the

literature review to your proposed medicine, dose and indications. The relevant evidence base

for your indication includes all studies that are relevant in terms (amongst others) of ingredient,

health benefit, population and context of use.

Additionally, you will be able to determine which items of evidence can be classified as a

primary source of evidence (either supporting or non-supporting of your indication), and which

item should be relegated to a secondary source of evidence.

If your medicine has more than one indication, you should fill out a new version of checklist 4 for

each indication.
Use t
he s
cientific evidence f ilter to reduce t
he number of evidence i tems to
those t
hat are r
elevant and of high-quality, or to those that you can j ustify their
inclusion into your evidence s ummary.
You should also ensure that the evidence supporting your indications remains valid for the life of

the medicine, and this is best achieved using a body of evidence approach. As research advances,

the body of scientific evidence supporting a particular health benefit may change. Newer clinical

studies may enhance the strength of the evidence supporting your claim, or it may be

inconsistent with the strength of previous research. Having a body of supporting evidence will

allow you to ensure that the indications claimed for your medicine remain true, valid, not

misleading and consistent with scientific evidence for the life your medicine.

4a: Simplified filter for non-specific supplementation indication

Vitamin, mineral and nutrient supplementation is often supported by high-quality and credible

scientific literature. Use this simplified checklist if your medicine provides a vitamin, mineral or

nutrient and the indication refers to general health and wellbeing and does not claim a specific

health benefit.
Evidence item

Part 1: Filter for credibility of evidence

The questions in this part aim to establish that your evidence item is from a well-recognised and

credible source.

V3.0 uary 2019

Part 2: Filter for relevance of evidence

This part establishes that you have the same ingredient as in the evidence, it is absorbable by the
body and the medicine provides 25% of the Recommended Daily Intake (RDI).
Assessment of evidence item

If you answered yes to the majority of questions above and have 2 sources of primary evidence,
it is likely your indication will be supported by the evidence.
4b: Scientific evidence filter: relevance and quality

This section assists you determine which items of evidence in your evidence summary are
relevant to your medicine and assess the quality of evidence that are relevant.
Provide details of the item of evidence at the top of the table.
Evidence item
Part 1: Relevance of the evidence source to the indication

The checklist includes questions to allow you to assess whether the item of evidence is relevant
to your medicine. You assess whether your item of evidence of traditional use is relevant by
determining how similar it is to your medicine/indication. You determine this by answering by
selecting either ‘identical’, ‘similar’, ‘different’ or ‘unknown’ to the questions for each piece of
evidence you hold.
Indication
You must ensure that the research is relevant to your specific indication for your medicine. In
selecting indications, you should take care to make sure that they match the underlying evidence
you hold. Indications that do not match the science, no matter how sound that science is, are
unlikely to be supported. Indications should not exaggerate the extent, nature, or prominence of
the effects achieved in a study (the study outcomes), and should not suggest greater scientific
certainty than that which actually exists.
Specificity
Your evidence should refer to the same specific health benefit (with the same meaning and
intent) as your medicine.
If your indication is a specific, scientific indication, the evidence should support this specific
health benefit and context of use, for example: target population.
Active ingredient characterisation

The active ingredient should be clearly identified and characterised in the evidence, including
such things as plant part, preparation and extraction method.
For specific scientific indications, the different formulation between your medicine and that of
the formulation reported in the scientific evidence is very important (for example: the use of a
novel tablet matrix). If there are differences noted, then further justifications will be required to
address the data gaps identified using the checklists provided.
V3.0 uary 2019
Active ingredient name

The evidence must be relevant to the ingredient name used in your medicine, such as the:
• Latin binomial for herbal species; or
• correct scientific name (including relevant salt) for minerals, vitamins or other non-herbal
substances).
Dosage
For scientific indications, the recommended dosage and duration or frequency of administration
of the medicine must be consistent with the evidence supporting the indication.
Route of administration
The evidence must relate to the whole medicine, the same active constituent(s) with a similar
route of administration to the medicine for which a claim is being made.
Duration of use
The recommended duration of use for your medicine should reflect the evidence.
Risks, cautions and contraindications

Your medicine should restrict us to any risks, cautions or contraindications included in the
evidence.
Part 2: Quality of the evidence item

In addition to determining the relevance of the item of evidence, you need to determine whether
the evidence is of high quality, as the quality of evidence is important. Only items of evidence
that are relevant to your medicine need to be filtered in this part of the scientific filter.
Clearly stated hypothesis

The item of evidence should clearly state the hypothesis or purpose of the study/research.
Study methodology
The clinical research being used to support your scientific indication should be conducted in a
reliable manner to yield meaningful and reproducible results. The design, implementation, and
results of each piece of research are important to assessing the adequacy of the substantiation of
the health benefit or study outcome.
There are some principles generally accepted in the scientific community to enhance the validity
of test results. However, there is no single set protocol for how to conduct research. For
example, a study that is carefully controlled, with blinding of subjects and researchers, is likely
to yield more reliable results. A study of longer duration can provide better evidence that the
claimed effect will persist and better evidence to identify potential safety concerns.
You should critically appraise scientific studies in terms of methodological quality and the
possibility of bias and/or confounding. Studies that have been peer-reviewed are more likely to
be methodologically robust, but may not be.
Filtering to relevant evidence to those of high quality will involve, as a minimum, an assessment
of the following:
• characterisation of the ingredient/s
• study design/methods
V3.0 uary 2019
• participant eligibility (inclusion/exclusion criteria)

• adequacy of randomisation and blinding of participants (for example Randomised
Controlled Trials (RCT))
• sample size justification
• controlling for potential confounders
• study attrition (for RCT and cohort studies); and
• statistical analyses undertaken
For each study, the meaningfulness of the observed effect/s to consumers at an individual
and/or population level (clinical significance) must be assessed.
Participants enrolled in studies used to justify indications for your listed medicine should fit the
following eligibility criteria, unless your medicine is directed to a specific population sub-group:
• male and female participants
• generally healthy
• aged 18–65 years; and
• socioculturally similar to the Australian population.
Secondary evidence or non-clinical studies (such as mechanistic studies) are normally
insufficient to support indications implying efficacy. However, secondary evidence may be used
in conjunction with primary evidence to strengthen the wording of an indication.
Participant dropouts
Attrition rates are commonly high in studies that evaluate health gains that are modest and
require long-term commitment. High attrition can introduce serious bias (attrition bias) into
these studies because the reasons for non-completion vary across initially randomised groups.
High attrition rates may also diminish the general applicability of the treatment to the Australian
population. The resulting data from a high attrition study should be interpreted with caution.
Confounders
Do any of the study’s confounders or variable affect the relevance of the evidence to your
indication?
Method of randomisation
Studies that incorporate randomisation process of assigning trial subjects to treatment or
control groups are often considered of greater quality due the reduction of potential for bias.
The randomisation method should be described in the study report and meet contemporary
standards (such as using post-study questionnaires’ of study participants to confirm that they
remained blinded). Similarly, the incorporation of good blinding methods in the study design
tends to result in studies that are methodologically robust.
Blinding protocol
Blinding protocols aim to avoid bias. A double blind protocol is where neither the experimenter
nor experimental subjects have knowledge of the identity of the treatments or the results until
after the experiment is complete.
V3.0 uary 2019
Statistical analysis
Statistical significance of study outcomes is important. A study that fails to show a statistically
significant difference between test and control group may indicate that the measured effects are
merely the result of a placebo effect or chance. The results should translate into a meaningful
benefit for consumers. Some results that are statistically significant may still be so small that
they may not provide a positive effect to consumer health.
Study limitations
You need to consider if any study limitation affect the relevance of the evidence to your
indication.
Clinical significance
You should assess the results of scientific studies for statistical significance and meaningfulness
(clinical significance) of the reported therapeutic benefit. Your evidence should demonstrate an
overall improvement in the expected health benefit that is statistically and clinically significant.
Assessment of evidence to support your scientific indication

If you have answered yes or identical to the majority of questions it is likely that the item of
evidence is relevant and of high quality and supports your indication.
Items that are considered to be of low quality should be disregarded unless you can provide a
justification (refer to 4d) for its inclusion into your evidence summary as a secondary source of
evidence.
4c: Balanced view of evidence

Part 4c assists you in make a balanced assessment of the evidence, which is an important
criterion in evaluating the validity of your package is whether your evidence package represents
a balanced view of the currently available body of evidence.
Before you list a medicine on the ARTG you must be satisfied that the balance of evidence
supports your indication. In other words, a reasonable person making an objective assessment
of all the relevant, high-quality evidence about your medicine would conclude that the weight of
good evidence is in favour of your indication rather than against it. Your indications must not,
indirectly, or by implication, lead consumers to believe that your medicine will assist in a health
benefit that is not explicitly supported by the balance of evidence.
Studies cannot be evaluated in isolation of the surrounding context. The surrounding context of
the scientific evidence is just as important as the internal validity of individual studies. You need
to consider all relevant research relating to the claimed benefit of your medicine and should not
focus only on research that supports the effect, while discounting research that does not. A well-
constructed literature search should normally be undertaken to help ensure that the general
body of evidence related to a specific indication is identified.
Your evidence should rely on studies that are largely consistent with the surrounding body of
evidence. Where there are inconsistencies in the evidence, it is important that you examine
whether there is a plausible explanation for those inconsistencies. In some instances, for
example, the differences in results will be attributable to differences in dosage, the form of
administration, the population tested, or other aspects of study methodology. You should assess
how relevant each piece of research is to the specific indication you wish to make, and also
consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. If a number of studies of different
quality have been conducted on a specific topic, you should look first to the results of the studies
with more reliable methodologies (that is, RCTs or systematic reviews).
V3.0 uary 2019
To facilitate the assessment of balance view of evidence, both relevant non-supporting and
supporting items of evidence will need to be assessed for quality.
Checklist 4c provides a mechanism to determine the number of high-quality items that are
relevant to your medicine. You will need to have regard to irrelevant studies noted during the
search of the available literature to make an assessment of the balance of evidence for
supporting your indication. Only if the balance of high quality evidence is equivocal are the
outcomes of lower quality studies to be included in assessing the balance of evidence.
This checklist is designed to help you assess whether a reasonable person making an objective
assessment of all the relevant, high-quality evidence about your medicine would conclude that
the weight of high-quality evidence is in favour of your indication rather than against it.
When the balance of scientific evidence supports your proposed indication then complete the
Scientific Evidence summary. Otherwise, you should reconsider your indication and modify the
indication such that it is consistent with the evidence that you hold.
4d: Justification of evidence

If you choose to include a piece of evidence in your evidence summary that is not relevant, of
high quality or reflective of the balance of evidence, you should provide justification for doing so.
Otherwise you may choose to reconsider the wording (or strength/specificity) of your indication
and evaluate the evidence for a modified indication.
If your evidence does not include certain details (for example: frequency of dose or dosage form)
you should provide justification for the inclusion of these specific details on your medicine and
this may be derived from another item of evidence.
Justification can consist of written explanations, documents and supportive evidence.
Next step
Once you have filtered your evidence to those references that are credible and relevant, or have
a justification for their inclusion in your evidence summary, then these references should be
included and summarised in Checklist 6: Summary table for evidence of scientific use.
V3.0 uary 2019
Checklist 5: Evidence of traditional use summary

Use this document to summarise your evidence items that when considered together support
your traditional indication (combined collection of evidence). You should only need to complete
this summary document once for all indications related to your medicine.
5a: Reference list for indications

Provide the indications as listed in checklist 1; Evidence package cover page, part 1d.
5b: Reference list for items of evidence

Enter full citation details of the evidence into the table, and then use the corresponding
‘Evidence reference number’ to add detail on each of these references to the table in 5c.
You should record the following, where relevant, for each item of evidence you find in the
summary of evidence of traditional use table:
• the bibliographic details
• author name
• article title
• journal title
• journal volume/issue number
• month and year of publication; and
• page numbers.
5c: Evidence summary for traditional indications

Use this section to summarise the findings and how they relate to your medicine. Ensure that the
reason for including each item of evidence is clear from the information included in the list. If
aspects of the evidence such as dosages, preparation types, indications or patient populations
differ from those applicable to your medicine, include the justification of the relevance of the
evidence in the ‘Summary of findings’ column.
You should attach a copy of each item of evidence to the checklist that applies to it, and make
sure you note the correct publication details.
Examples of the type of the types of evidence included in the summary for a traditional
indication include:
• copies of primary sources of information, for example: the relevant pages of a recognised
pharmacopoeia such as the British Herbal Pharmacopoeia
• verified translations of those pages if the sources are in languages other than English
• video footage (digital format, not on film) or transcripts of any video footage being used as
evidence; and
• any additional information to support justifications for inclusion of evidence items.
V3.0 uary 2019
Checklist 6: Evidence summary for scientific indications

The evidence summary table is what the whole evidence-filtering process leads up to. Checklist

6 includes all the required summary information for your listed scientific indication.

If the evidence summary table lists items of evidence that are not relevant or includes poor

quality studies (without providing justification for their inclusion into your evidence summary),

the TGA may ask for further clarification as to why you have included evidence that appears

irrelevant.
Does the Evidence summary table only include relevant, high quality
evidence?
If not, then you will need to provide justifications as to why you have i ncluded
these i tems in your evidence s ummary.
6a: Reference list for indications

Provide the indications as listed in checklist 1; Evidence package cover page, part 1d.

6b: Reference list for items of scientific evidence

Enter full citation details of the evidence into the table, and then use the corresponding

‘Evidence reference number’ to add detail on each of these references to the table in 6c.

You should record the following, where relevant, for each item of evidence you find in the

summary of evidence of traditional use table:

author name
article title

journal title
journal volume/issue number

month and year of publication; and

page numbers.

6c: Evidence summary for scientific indications

Use this checklist to assist you to summarise your evidence and justify how it supports the

scientific indications you claim for your medicine. You will take the items of evidence from

checklist 4 which have been classified as supporting and summarise these in checklist 6.

You should attach a copy of each item of evidence and any additional information (for example:

to support justifications for inclusion of evidence items) to your evidence package.


V3.0 uary 2019

Appendix 2: Journal impact factors

The 'Impact Factor' (IF) is a measure of 'citation rate per article', and is calculated by dividing 1

years’ worth of citations of a journal's articles published in the previous 2 years by the number

of major articles published by that journal in those 2 years. Scientists strive to have their

research published in journals with high IFs, as this has practical implications for their future

funding and employment prospects.

Limitations of the IF
Generally, while high IFs are indicative of the (high) quality and "impact" of research published

by a given journal, low IFs do not necessarily correlate with low quality research. A given journal

may for example consistently publish 'good research', but have a low IF, if the field of research is

narrow and therefore has a small readership/ authorship base.

Journals with high IFs (for example Science 31, for 2011) tend to have been established for many

decades, and accept manuscripts from a broad range of disciplines. Because they have a high IF,

researchers attempt to publish in them first, so they get "first right of refusal" on all the best

research. IF is dependent on net readership, and therefore journals that publish weekly or are

free to air have higher IF value compared to journals that are published monthly, but in general

a higher IF value the better the research.

What constitutes a ‘high IF’?

As a rough rule of thumb, the information in Table 10 can be used to assess the potential

usefulness of papers published in a journal with a given IF:

Table 11: Implications of Impact Factor Range
Impact Factor Range Implication
0 ("not yet available") to < 5
Ambiguous/ uninformative
5 to < 10
Suggestive of "quality" research

(i.e. rigorous peer-review and high interest-value)

Highly suggestive of quality research

Various companies provide IF values as well as other information of all journals to provide

guidance regarding the level of quality of journals (website search for impact factors will find

this information).


V3.0 uary 2019

Appendix 3: Examples of internationally

recognised resources and texts - monographs
and pharmacopoeias
The TGA does not review the information included in internationally recognised resources and
texts for example – monographs, pharmacopoeias, other text publications. It is your
responsibility to ensure that the evidence you provide to support your indications is relevant to
your medicine and is of sufficient quality.
The texts that are listed in this appendix are examples of internationally recognised texts that
may provide evidentiary support to your indications.
Monographs
• Blumenthal M et al. (eds) (2000) Herbal Medicine – Expanded Commission E monographs,
American Botanical Council, Austin, Texas.
• European Scientific Co-operative on Phytotherapy (ESCOP) series (1996) Monographs on
the Medicinal Uses of Plant Drugs, ESCOP, Exeter.
• World Health Organization (WHO) (1999) Monographs on Selected Medicinal Plants, Vol 1,
WHO, Geneva.
Pharmacopoeias
• British Herbal Pharmacopoeia, British Herbal Medicines Association, West Yorkshire.
• European Pharmacopoeia, Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
• Martindale: the Extra Pharmacopoeia, Pharmaceutical Press, London.
• The British Pharmaceutical Codex, Pharmaceutical Press, London.
• The British Pharmacopoeia, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.
• The United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary, USP Convention Inc, Rockville,
Maryland.
• Pharmacopoeia of the People’s Republic of China Vol 1
V3.0 uary 2019
Appendix 4: References
Benedict, M & Arterburn, D (2008). Worksite-based weight loss programs: A systematic review
of recent literature. American Journal of Health Promotion 22(6): 408-416.
CONSORT website (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials)
European Medicines Agency (2007). Guideline on clinical evaluation of medicinal products used
in weight control (CPMP/EWP/281/96). London.
Franz M, et al. (2007). Weight-loss outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of weight-
loss clinical trials with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association 107: 1755-1767.
Franz, M, et al. (2007). Weight-loss outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of weight-
loss clinical trial with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association 107: 1755-1767.
Heller HJ, Greer LG, Haynes SD, Poindexter JR, and Pak CY (2000) Pharmacokinetic and
Pharmacodynamic comparison of two calcium supplements in postmenopausal women. J Clin
Pharmacol Nov; 40(11): 1237-44.
Jull, A, et al. (2009). Chitosan for overweight or obesity (Review). The Cochrane Library 2009(1):
1-44.
Koepsell, T & Weiss, N (2003). Epidemiologic Methods: Studying the occurrence of illness.
Oxford University Press, New York.
National Health and Medical Research Council (2003). Clinical Practice Guidelines for the
Management of Overweight and Obesity in Adults. Canberra.
National Health Medical Research Council. levels of evidence and grades for recommendations
for developers of guidelines. 2009.
Note for guidance on good clinical practice (CPMP/ICH/135/95). Therapeutic Goods
Administration 2000.
Rose G and Day, S (1990). The population mean predicts the number of deviant individuals.
British Medical Journal 301: 1031-1034.
Sacks F, et al. (2009). Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein,
and carbohydrates. New England Journal of Medicine 360(9): 859-873.
Schulz, KF et al. (2010). CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel
Group Randomized Trials. Annals of Internal Medicine. 152.
United States Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) "Business Guide for Dietary Supplement
Industry Released by FTC Staff". (The full version of the FTC's guidelines are available from the
website.
Wu T, et al. (2009). Long-term effectiveness of diet-plus-exercise interventions vs. diet only
interventions for weight loss: a meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews 10: 313-323.
Laaser U, et al. (2001). Can a decline in the population means of cardiovascular risk factors
reduce the number of people at risk? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 55: 179-
184.
V3.0 uary 2019
Version history
Version Description of change Author Effective date
V1.0 Original publication
Therapeutic Goods October 2001

Administration, Office
of Complementary

Medicines
V1.1 Change of format Therapeutic Goods April 2011

of Complementary

Medicines
V2.0 Revision Therapeutic Goods March 2014


of Complementary

Medicines
V2.1 Row 1,Table 6, page 41 correction
Therapeutic Goods July 2014
of BMI range to state 25-30kg/m
2 Administration, Office
of Complementary

Medicines
V3.0 Reviewed to incorporate Therapeutic Goods uary 2019

amendments to the Act that came
into effect March 2018 that
of Complementary &

introduced permitted indications
Over the Counter

for listed medicines and the
Medicines
assessed listed pathway.
Updated indication examples and

updated information on biomarker

indications to be consistent with

permitted indications for listed

medicines.
Removal of duplicate information

available in other guidance

material on the TGA website (e.g.

ARGCM, ARGATC).

Formatting changes, correction of:

links; typographical; and

grammatical errors.

V3.0 uary 2019

PO Box 100 Woden ACT 2606 Australia
Email: [email protected] Phone: 1800 020 653 Fax: 02 6203 1605
https://www.tga.gov.au
Reference/Publication #

TGA Evidence Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TGA Evidence Guidelines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TGA Evidence Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence guidelines

Guidelines on the evidence required to support

Version 3.0, uary 2019

How to compile a summary of the evidence to support your indication for

Guidelines on the evidence required to support

Note: These guidelines will be subject to a broad review in 2019 to improve

Who are these guidelines for?

While sunscreens are a listed medicine product type, there is currently

Part A provides guidance on:

Part A: Evidence to support indications for listed

A 3 year transition period is in place (ending 6 March 2021) for sponsors of

Indication types and evidence requirements

Type of indication Type of evidence

Scientific indications Must be supported by scientific evidence, such as clinical studies or

Traditional indications Must be supported by evidence of traditional use in a recognised

Traditional Chinese Must be supported by evidence of traditional use within traditional

Traditional Ayurvedic Must be supported by evidence of traditional use within traditional

What are the indication sub-types (specific or non-specific)?

Sub-type 1: Non-specific (general indications)

Sub-type 2: Specific indications

Note that indications included in Permissible Indications Determination are

Table 2 and 3 provides examples of non-specific indications.

Health benefit Definition of health benefit Example of an indication

Health Normal physiological effects of ‘Maintain general health and

Relief of general Symptoms not related to a named ’Decrease/reduce/relieve skin

General Supplementation with vitamins, ‘Maintain/support calcium levels in

Table 3: Specific indications for listed medicines

Health benefit Definition of health benefit Example of an indication

Health Specific beneficial effects of ‘Helps enhance blood circulation to

Reduce occurrence Reduce the occurrence of a ‘Help reduce occurrence of symptoms

Management or Reduces the frequency, duration ‘Relieve symptoms of hayfever’

Improved quality of life without ‘Enhance/improve/promote/increase

Supplementation If a supplementation indication is ‘Support calcium absorption in bones

Evidence to support indications for listed medicines

What type of evidence do you have to support your indication?

Do you have evidence of traditional use?

Do you have scientific evidence?

Do you have a combination of scientific evidence and a history of traditional

How to source, assess, record and present evidence to support your

Traditional indications: what evidence do you

Evidence of traditional use

Many traditional ingredients have a well-established period of widespread traditional use

Well established traditional of use

If the traditional indication is non-specific (general) and is associated with a well-established

Multi-traditional paradigm medicines

Example of a traditional indication for a multi traditional paradigm medicine:

What are the sources of evidence of traditional use?

What are the primary sources of evidence of traditional use?

A pharmacopoeia contains a comprehensive list of medicines and describes

Some monographs refer to clinical studies or pharmacology of a particular ingredient using

Can non-reference textbooks be used as sources of evidence?

Can you use modern textbooks and monographs to support your

Can you use independent written histories to support your traditional

Assessing the relevance of evidence to your indication

Modification of traditional formulations

What indication sub-type does your evidence of traditional

Level of indication Evidentiary support required

Example 1: Supportive evidence for a non-specific indication for a

Example 2: Non-supportive evidence for a traditional specific indication