Draft monograph: Exenatide — submissions
The 8 submissions received, published in full with declared interests and secretariat responses.
§2Submissions and responses
8 submissions were received. Each is published in full below with its declared interest, the secretariat response and the disposition. The Institute publishes submissions it did not accept in the same form as those it did.
Regulatory status is stated without naming the jurisdiction
The draft states that the compound is approved, or not approved, without saying by whom. The respondent, employed by a health-technology assessment body, states that approval status differs between jurisdictions for several compounds in the series and that an unqualified statement will be wrong somewhere.
The respondent proposes that every status statement name the authority and carry the date on which the status was checked.
The secretariat accepts this submission. An unattributed status statement is a claim the Institute cannot support.
Every regulatory status statement now names the authority, states the date on which the status was verified, and is recorded per jurisdiction rather than as a single global assertion.
Every contributing trial shares one sponsor and the monograph does not say so
The respondent, who has published a systematic review of this literature, states that all of the contributing trials for the principal outcome were conducted by a single sponsor, and that this is a property of the evidence base rather than a criticism of any individual trial.
The respondent proposes that sponsor concentration be recorded as a characteristic of the evidence base in the certainty assessment rather than as a note in the discussion.
The secretariat accepts this submission. Sponsor concentration bears on what an independent replication would add, and the draft recorded it where a reader was least likely to see it.
Sponsor concentration is now stated with the certainty rating, and the monograph records how many independent sponsors contributed evidence to each assessed outcome.
The monograph should state what the compound costs
The respondent states that a reader deciding whether to pursue treatment needs to know what it costs, and that omitting price makes the assessment less useful than it could be.
The respondent proposes that a price range be recorded for each compound with the source and date.
The secretariat does not accept this submission. Price varies by jurisdiction, payer, presentation and date to a degree that no single figure could survive, and a stale price is worse than no price.
No price is recorded. The monograph records the presentations available and the regulatory status in each jurisdiction, which are the facts the Institute can verify and maintain. The submission remains published in full.
Two factual descriptions of the sponsor's programme are inaccurate
The submission is made on behalf of the marketing-authorisation holder and is confined to two matters of fact. The draft describes a trial as terminated where the sponsor closed it at a pre-specified interim analysis, and gives a dose in a unit that does not match the approved labelling.
Supporting documentation, comprising the published trial report and the current summary of product characteristics, accompanied the submission. No view is expressed on the certainty ratings, which the sponsor considers a matter for the assessment committee.
The secretariat accepts this submission. Both points are matters of fact, both were checkable against documents the Institute holds, and both were wrong in the draft.
The trial status now reads as completed at a pre-specified interim analysis, with the analysis identified, and the dose is stated in the unit used in the approved labelling. The submission is identified as an industry submission on its face in accordance with the conflicts policy.
The document set should be published in translation
The respondent notes that the assessments concern compounds supplied internationally and that publishing only in English restricts access to the assessment to readers who work in it.
The respondent proposes machine translation of the document set as an interim measure, with human review of the certainty language.
The secretariat does not accept this submission, and records that the underlying point is sound and that the proposed remedy is the difficulty.
A translation whose certainty language has drifted is a different assessment carrying the Institute's name, and the Institute cannot review translations it does not have the capacity to review. The documents remain in English. The submission is published in full because the access problem it identifies is real and unresolved.
The monograph does not tell a reader that a stated mass may be substantially counter-ion and water
The draft quotes vial contents in milligrams without stating whether the figure refers to peptide content or to total solids. For an acetate or trifluoroacetate salt of a peptide, the difference between the two can exceed a fifth of the stated mass.
The respondent, an analytical chemist, states that this is the single most consequential misreading in the field and that a monograph that does not address it directly is leaving the reader to discover it.
The secretariat accepts this submission. Moderate certainty evidence from published analytical surveys suggests that content and total solids are routinely conflated in supply documentation, and the draft did not warn the reader.
The monograph now states, at the point where vial contents are first mentioned, that a mass figure is uninterpretable unless it states whether it is peptide content or total solids, and cross-references the content standard in the analytical series.
Effect estimates are given without naming the comparator
Several estimates in the draft state an effect without stating what it was measured against. An estimate against placebo and an estimate against an active comparator are not the same quantity and the draft presents them in one column.
The respondent proposes that the comparator be part of every outcome row rather than a footnote, and that estimates against different comparators never share a column.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A footnoted comparator is a comparator a reader will not carry into the next row.
The comparator is now stated in every outcome row, and estimates against different comparators are reported in separate tables with the comparator named in the table caption.
Storage and reconstitution guidance is given without stating what it rests on
The draft states storage conditions and a period of use after reconstitution. The respondent asks what evidence supports the period, and states that in the absence of a stability study on this presentation the figure is a convention rather than a finding.
The respondent proposes that any in-use period be accompanied by the stability evidence that produced it, or removed.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. The period is retained where a stability study on a comparable presentation exists and is cited. Where no such study exists the figure is removed rather than annotated, because an annotated figure is still a figure a reader will use.
In-use periods now appear only where supported by a cited stability determination on a stated presentation, and elsewhere the monograph records that no in-use stability evidence was identified for this presentation.
References cited on this page
References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. ISO/IEC Standard 2017;3rd edition. identifier not held by the Institute
Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.