Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Public comment period · §2

Draft monograph: Kisspeptin-10 — submissions

The 4 submissions received, published in full with declared interests and secretariat responses.

Document identifier
CEI-CP-058/2
Series
Public comment period
Version
1.0
Published
10 Aug 2024
Last reviewed
10 Aug 2024
Next review
10 Aug 2025
Identifier
10.71829/cei.cp.58
Certainty
Not rated
Cycle
2024 Q2
Window
07 May 2024 – 02 Jul 2024
Status
Closed
Submissions
4

§2Submissions and responses

4 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.

Dr Kolawole Isaksen-Balogun, MD, MRCP Independent analytical consultancy
DRAFT-KISSPEPTIN-1/001 received 09 May 2024

The analytical section assumes a reference standard that is not generally available

The draft describes identity and content determinations that require a reference standard of assigned content. For this compound no such standard is in general circulation, and a laboratory following the section as written cannot perform the determination described.

The respondent, employed by a contract analytical laboratory, proposes that the monograph state explicitly where a reference standard is unavailable and what a determination performed without one can still establish.

Declared interest. Has received consultancy fees from a supplier named in the Institute's supplier assessment set within the preceding two years.
Secretariat responseAccepted18 Jul 2024

The secretariat accepts this submission. The section described an ideal case and did not say so.

The analytical section now states whether a reference standard is in general circulation for this compound and, where it is not, states which determinations remain possible and which become qualitative. A content figure obtained without a reference standard is recorded as an estimate against a stated assumption rather than as a determination.

Dr Lorcan Whitmarsh-Obi, MSc (Regulatory Affairs) Public-sector clinical trials unit
DRAFT-KISSPEPTIN-1/002 received 18 May 2024

The same concept is given three different names in one document

The draft refers to the same quantity as a response rate, a responder proportion and a categorical outcome in different sections. The respondent, who works in health-technology assessment, states that a reader cannot tell whether the three refer to one thing or to three.

The respondent proposes that the glossary term be used at every occurrence and that the glossary entry be linked at first use in each section rather than only at first use in the document.

Declared interest. Is a member of the Institute's external reviewer register but did not review the document under consultation.
Secretariat responseAccepted30 Jul 2024

The secretariat accepts this submission. The variation was stylistic and its cost to the reader exceeds any benefit.

A single term is now used throughout for each defined concept, and the glossary entry is linked at first use within each section rather than once per document.

Ms Rhiannon Okoye-Vandergraaf, BSc, patient representative Patient representative
DRAFT-KISSPEPTIN-1/003 received 27 May 2024

Guidance on lyophilised storage is missing

The respondent asks that the monograph state storage conditions for lyophilised material as well as for reconstituted solution, since the two differ and the former governs the longer part of the shelf life.

The respondent states that the omission is the more consequential because lyophilised material is what is generally received.

Declared interest. Has used a compound in the class under assessment under prescription. Declared at the Institute's request; the Institute regards a lived-experience declaration as an interest and not as a disqualification.
Secretariat responseNoted, no amendment16 Jul 2024

The secretariat notes this submission. The draft addresses lyophilised storage, in the presentation section rather than in the section on in-use handling, which is where the respondent looked.

No amendment to content arises. The two storage statements have been brought together under a single heading so that a reader looking for either finds both.

Dr Fenella Steenkamp-Ferreira, MD, FRCP Independent evidence-synthesis consultancy
DRAFT-KISSPEPTIN-1/004 received 04 Jun 2024

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.

Declared interest. Is an employee of a marketing-authorisation holder for a compound named in the draft. This submission is made on behalf of that company and is identified as an industry submission throughout.
Secretariat responseAccepted in part01 Aug 2024

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.

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.

  1. 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.

Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.