On this page
Which product labeling accompanies a Form FDA 2253 submission?
Use the product’s current professional labeling, matched to the actual product and application in the final promotional submission. Verify that it agrees with the baseline used for promotional review and reassess any intervening changes. Current labeling at 1.14.6 and optional annotated labeling at 1.15.2.1.3 have distinct roles; the annotated copy does not eliminate the current-label requirement.
Before you begin
Product labeling accompanying applicable postmarketing promotional submissions. OPDP and APLB processes differ; this page is a labeling-selection guide, not a field-by-field walkthrough of a particular form revision.
What you will prepare: A verified current-label artifact or supported reference, reconciled with the product and materials in the promotional submission.
Establish which label is current
The April 2022 guidance, IV.A and VI.G, addresses current product labeling accompanying applicable Form FDA 2253 submissions. Obtain the controlled current professional labeling and relevant product/application identity. Compare it with the label version used to review the promotional piece. A newly current safety statement can make an older promotional review obsolete even if the piece’s design has not changed.
Separate current labeling from annotations
Section 1.14.6 holds the product-labeling artifact for this purpose; annotated product-label support is a different artifact at 1.15.2.1.3. If annotations are supplied, do not let them obscure or replace the current-label requirement. The guidance discusses supported cross-reference mechanisms, but its XML examples are legacy backbone instructions: have the publisher verify the actual eCTD version and destination before reusing a technical operation.
Reconcile the promotional manifest
Record product, application, promotional material ID, audience, version and the label baseline used in review. For materials discussing multiple products, verify each relationship rather than assuming the lead application’s label covers all claims. Inspect the final rendered label and compare it with the controlled source; broken pages and a stale attachment are content problems even when the submission package validates technically.
Fictional example: an old label reused by reference
The proposed submission references a prior label file, but safety wording changed afterward. Identify the current label and reassess the piece’s claims and risk presentation. Ask the publisher to establish the valid current-file relationship. Reusing an earlier technical reference is acceptable only if it points to the correct current content for the actual submission.
Reconcile the label used for review with the label submitted
Treat label selection as a controlled comparison, not a search for the most recently modified PDF. The advertising review may have started before the current label became available. Establish the actual status of each version from the regulatory record.
| Check | Evidence | Disposition before handoff |
|---|---|---|
| Product identity | Application, established name, trade name and relevant presentation | Resolve similar names or a file belonging to another application |
| Current professional labeling | Controlled label and supporting regulatory record | Identify the authoritative current version |
| Promotional review baseline | Label version in the material's review record | Reassess any difference from the current label |
| Other referenced products | Material-to-product/application map | Confirm the applicable labeling and submission relationships for each product |
| Packaged artifact | Actual file or supported reference opened from the package | Verify full content, readability and correct destination |
| Optional annotations | Separate annotated-label artifact linked to the piece | Preserve the unambiguous current-label role at 1.14.6 |
FDA's April 2022 guidance, IV.A, distinguishes the final postmarketing package from a request to review draft promotion. The final package includes the form, promotional material and current product labeling. Annotations are encouraged but are not universally required for these final submissions. The same guidance says professional and consumer materials should be submitted separately and that standard 2253 submissions should not include a cover letter or correspondence. Do not convert the internal reconciliation table into an unsolicited generic cover letter.
Fictional baseline exercise: a brochure was reviewed against label A. Before initial dissemination, label B adds safety information. The submission team replaces the attached label but leaves the brochure's risk presentation unchanged. That file substitution alone does not resolve the issue. Identify the changed passages, assess their effect on the brochure and record the responsible review of the actual final material before handoff.
If the publisher uses a supported reference to a previously submitted label, open the resolved target and establish that it is the correct current version. A successful reference operation does not establish the regulatory status of its target. The guidance's specific XML examples concern the legacy regional backbone; use the actual supported publishing specification for the submission in hand.
For a multiproduct piece, map each claim to its actual product and label. A lead application is an organizational choice, not a substitute for the other products' identities. Use the submission-planning guide to resolve the route and the material-evidence guide to reconcile clean and annotated versions.
Your preparation checklist
0/3 checkedUse this to track your review in this visit. Checks are not saved and do not establish regulatory compliance.
Frequently asked questions
Can annotated labeling replace the current product label in a 2253 package?
No. The guidance distinguishes the current product labeling at 1.14.6 from annotated labeling at 1.15.2.1.3. If optional annotated labeling is included for a final postmarketing submission, retain the separate current-label artifact or supported reference and verify that it resolves to the correct version.
Should a standard final 2253 submission include a general cover letter?
The April 2022 guidance says professional and consumer materials should be submitted separately and should not include a cover letter or correspondence for standard 2253 reporting. A separately classified amendment or other correspondence has its own instructions. Keep an internal preparation checklist distinct from the submitted package.
What if product labeling changed after the promotional piece was reviewed?
Compare the old and current label, identify affected claims and risk presentation, and obtain the appropriate review of the final piece. Replacing only the attached label does not establish that the promotional material remains suitable. Record the version and disposition used for the actual dissemination decision.
Does a valid cross-reference prove that the linked label is current?
No. A technical reference can successfully open an obsolete file. Verify the resolved content against the controlled current labeling and the actual product/application. Have the publisher apply version-appropriate reference mechanics, and do not reuse legacy XML instructions as if they were universal eCTD v4.0 instructions.
Sources and revisions
Requirements, source recommendations and editorial preparation advice have different roles. Review the scope and revision of the source you use.
Guidance
FDA: Submissions of Promotional Labeling and Advertising ↗April 2022 final, Revision 1; IV.A–J, VI.E–H and VII. PDF production/PRA update April 2023 does not change the cover revision. Its legacy backbone syntax is not an eCTD v4 implementation guide. Checked September 22, 2026.
Technical specification · placement only
FDA eCTD v4.0 comprehensive hierarchy ↗Version 2.2, February 2025. Section 1.14.6. A heading identifies placement, not mandatory applicability.