Draft monograph: IGF-1 LR3 — submissions
The 9 submissions received, published in full with declared interests and secretariat responses.
§2Submissions and responses
9 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.
Trials are described as terminated where they completed as planned
The respondent states that the draft uses the word terminated for trials stopped at pre-specified interim analyses, for trials stopped for futility and for trials closed for commercial reasons, and that these are three different facts.
The respondent proposes that the status vocabulary be fixed and defined in the glossary.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. The vocabulary is fixed and defined. The proposal to distinguish commercial closure from futility in every case is accepted only where the Institute holds a document stating the reason.
Trial status now uses a fixed vocabulary defined in the glossary, and where the reason for stopping is not evidenced by a document the Institute holds, the status is recorded as stopped with the reason not established rather than assigned.
The absence of a rare harm in the trial set is presented as reassurance
The draft states that a specific serious event was not observed in the contributing trials. The respondent states that trials of the size conducted here could not have detected an event at the frequency in question, and that reporting the absence without that arithmetic converts an uninformative result into a reassuring one.
The respondent proposes that the detectable frequency be stated wherever the absence of an event is reported.
The secretariat accepts this submission. The Institute's own framework treats an absent event in an underpowered set as uninformative, and the draft departed from it.
Wherever the monograph reports that an event was not observed, it now states the total exposure and the frequency the contributing trials could have detected, so that the absence is read as the limit of the evidence rather than as a finding.
The certainty rating for the principal assessed outcome cannot be traced to the contributing trials
The draft states a certainty rating for the principal assessed outcome and lists the contributing trials, but does not state which domain drove the downgrade. A reader who disagrees with the rating cannot tell whether the disagreement concerns risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness or inconsistency.
The respondent proposes that each rating carry its downgrade reasons explicitly, in the same row as the rating, so that a reader can accept the evidence assessment while disputing a single domain judgement.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A rating without its reasoning is an assertion, and the draft asserted rather than showed.
Each assessed outcome now carries its downgrade domains in the summary-of-findings row, with a short statement of the judgement made in each, so that the rating can be checked domain by domain against the contributing trials.
Doses are expressed in units that differ between sections
The draft expresses dose in milligrams in one section and in micrograms per kilogram in another, drawn from different sources without conversion. The respondent, a hospital pharmacist, states that this is the shape of error that reaches a patient.
The respondent proposes a single unit throughout, with the source unit retained in parentheses where a conversion was performed.
The secretariat accepts this submission. The inconsistency was inherited from the sources and should have been resolved in drafting.
A single dose unit is now used throughout each monograph, with the source unit retained in parentheses wherever a conversion was applied, and every conversion is stated rather than performed silently.
A superseded version should remain reachable from the version that replaced it
The respondent states that the draft supersedes an earlier document and that a reader who cited the earlier version has no way to reach it from the new one, which makes it impossible to see what changed.
The respondent asks that every version carry a link both to what it supersedes and to what supersedes it.
The secretariat notes this submission. The corrections and versioning policy already requires bidirectional version links and every superseded document is retained at its own address.
No amendment arises. The requirement is stated in the corrections and versioning policy and the amendment log of this document links to the version it replaced. The respondent is correct that the link was absent from the draft page furnished for consultation, which was a defect of the consultation copy and not of the policy.
Quantitative claims are reproduced without the method that produced them
Several figures in the draft are quoted from sources that determined them by different methods. A figure obtained by one determination and a figure obtained by another are not comparable, and the draft places them in the same sentence without distinguishing them.
The respondent, an analytical chemist, proposes that every quantitative claim carry the method that produced it at the point of use rather than in the reference.
The secretariat accepts this submission. Placing two figures side by side is an implicit claim that they are the same kind of quantity, and in the cases identified they were not.
Every quantitative claim now carries the determination that produced it at the point of use, and figures obtained by non-comparable methods are no longer presented in the same row or sentence.
Anti-drug antibody data are omitted
The respondent states that immunogenicity is measured in the development programmes of peptide therapeutics and that the monograph does not report it, leaving a reader unable to judge whether loss of effect over time has an immunological explanation.
The respondent proposes that anti-drug antibody incidence and its relation to effect be reported for every compound in the series.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. Immunogenicity is reported where a contributing trial reported it. The proposal to report it for every compound is declined because for many compounds in the series no such data exist and a uniformly empty row is not informative.
Anti-drug antibody incidence and any reported association with loss of effect are now reported where measured, and recorded as not measured where the contributing trials did not assess them.
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.
The preclinical section is extensive and the clinical section is not
The draft summarises a large animal literature and a small or absent human literature. The respondent states that the resulting document reads as though a great deal is known, when what is known concerns rodents.
The respondent proposes that the preclinical section be reduced to a statement of what has been observed in animals and that the detail be removed entirely.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. The section is shortened and given a standing statement. The proposal to remove the detail is declined, because a reader encountering claims derived from that literature needs to be able to see what it actually contains.
The preclinical section is reduced in length, placed after the clinical assessment rather than before it, and opens with a standing statement that an effect observed in an animal model is not a clinical outcome and does not support a certainty rating.
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.