Draft monograph: Ipamorelin — submissions
The 10 submissions received, published in full with declared interests and secretariat responses.
§2Submissions and responses
10 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.
The population to which the headline estimate applies is not stated with the estimate
The draft carries a headline effect estimate in the abstract without the eligibility criteria of the trials that produced it. The respondent states that the estimate applies to a trial population with specific age, comorbidity and baseline criteria, and that a reader will apply it to whoever is in front of them.
The respondent proposes a one-line population statement adjacent to every headline estimate.
The secretariat accepts this submission. An estimate detached from its population is an estimate of nothing in particular.
Every headline estimate now carries a one-line statement of the population in which it was observed, and the full eligibility criteria are reported in the included-studies table rather than only in the source.
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.
What happens when the compound is stopped is not addressed
The draft assesses the effect of the compound while it is being taken. The respondent, who declares having used a compound in the class under prescription, states that the question a person actually faces is what happens afterwards, and that the monograph is silent on it.
The respondent proposes that the trajectory after discontinuation be an assessed outcome wherever any contributing trial measured it, and a recorded evidence gap wherever none did.
The secretariat accepts this submission. The omission was one of framing rather than of evidence, and the framing followed the trials rather than the decision.
Discontinuation trajectory is now an assessed outcome in every monograph where a contributing trial measured it, and a recorded evidence gap in every monograph where none did, so that its absence is visible rather than silent.
The monograph should not describe how the compound is supplied outside a regulated route
The respondent states that describing presentations observed in unregulated supply risks being read as a guide to obtaining them, and asks that the material be removed.
The respondent accepts that the information is accurate and objects to its presence rather than to its content.
The secretariat notes this submission and records the concern as a real one that the draft had already considered.
No amendment arises. The monograph describes what is supplied and names no supplier, price or route of acquisition, and it carries the standing statement that the Institute assesses evidence and does not recommend use. Describing a presentation a reader may already hold is the condition of being useful to that reader.
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.
Point estimates are given without an interval
Several estimates in the draft appear as single figures. The respondent states that a point estimate without an interval invites a precision the underlying data do not support, and that the effect is worst where the estimate is drawn from a small contributing set.
The respondent proposes that no point estimate appear anywhere in the document set without its interval, including in summary tables and in the abstract.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. Intervals are added wherever the source reports one. The proposal is declined for figures the source published without an interval, because the Institute will not compute an interval a source did not report.
Every estimate now carries its interval where the source reported one, and where it did not, the estimate is annotated as reported without an interval rather than left to appear as a precise figure.
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.
A purity figure from a certificate is quoted as though it were a content figure
The draft quotes a purity percentage from supply documentation in a sentence about how much compound a vial contains. Chromatographic purity is a relative area within what was detected; it is not a mass fraction and it does not bound vial content.
The respondent, an analytical chemist, proposes that purity and content never appear in the same sentence without an explicit statement that they answer different questions.
The secretariat accepts this submission. The conflation is the error the Institute most often corrects in supply documentation, and it appeared in an Institute draft.
Purity and content are now reported in separate rows with separate definitions, and the monograph states that a purity figure sets no bound on content and that a content figure requires a determination against a standard of assigned content.
The recorded evidence gaps omit outcomes a reader would consider material
The evidence-gap section records what has not been studied. The respondent, a practising clinician, states that the list is drawn from the outcomes the trials chose to measure and therefore reproduces the sponsor's outcome selection rather than correcting for it.
The respondent proposes that the gap list be constructed from the outcomes a prescribing decision turns on, and that outcomes measured by no trial appear in it as such.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. The gap list is reconstructed from the decision-relevant outcome set rather than from the measured set. The proposal that every unmeasured outcome be listed is declined, because an unbounded list of things not studied is not a finding.
The evidence-gap section is now derived from the anchor and decision-relevant outcomes for the indication, and any such outcome measured by no contributing trial is recorded as not measured rather than omitted.
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.
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.