Public comment period · §3
Draft monograph: Larazotide acetate — disposition
The disposition of every submission and the amendments that resulted.
§3Disposition and amendments
§3.1Disposition table
Table 1. Every submission with its disposition. Each row links to the submission in full.
| Reference | Respondent | Point raised | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| DRAFT-LARAZOTIDE-M/005 | Dr Rurik Haverkamp-Diallo | The monograph should state what the compound costs | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-LARAZOTIDE-M/001 | Nkechi Larsson-Ekwueme | The pharmacokinetic section does not connect half-life to the dosing schedule | Accepted |
| DRAFT-LARAZOTIDE-M/003 | Leonhard Achterberg | The analytical section is longer than the clinical assessment it accompanies | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-LARAZOTIDE-M/007 | Dr Rurik Underhill-Okafor | Every contributing trial shares one sponsor and the monograph does not say so | Accepted |
| DRAFT-LARAZOTIDE-M/006 | Dr Oisín Marchetti-Bassey industry | Two factual descriptions of the sponsor's programme are inaccurate | Accepted |
| DRAFT-LARAZOTIDE-M/002 | Vittoria Quintanilha | Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence | Accepted |
| DRAFT-LARAZOTIDE-M/008 | Xenia Nyquist-Obiora | Adverse event frequencies are given without the denominator or the exposure period | Accepted |
| DRAFT-LARAZOTIDE-M/004 | Dr Ndidi Ravensworth-Ilunga | The monograph does not tell a reader that a stated mass may be substantially counter-ion and water | Accepted |
| 8 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 6 | The submission is accepted and the draft is amended as proposed. The amendment is recorded in the amendment log of the document it changed and is traceable to the numbered submission. |
| Accepted in part | 1 | Part of the submission is accepted and part is not. The secretariat response states which part is which and on what ground the remainder was declined. |
| Noted, no amendment | 0 | The submission raises a point the Institute accepts but that does not require a change to the draft, most often because the draft already states it elsewhere. The location is given in the response. |
| Not accepted | 1 | The submission is not accepted. The secretariat response gives the reason. A submission that is not accepted remains published in full; the Institute does not remove a submission because it disagrees with it. |
§3.3Resulting amendments
- The pharmacokinetic section does not connect half-life to the dosing schedule — arising from DRAFT-LARAZOTIDE-M/001. The pharmacokinetic section now states approximate time to steady state alongside the half-life and dosing interval, with the assumption of first-order elimination stated, and records where the assumption is not supported for this compound.
- The analytical section is longer than the clinical assessment it accompanies — arising from DRAFT-LARAZOTIDE-M/003. The analytical section is reduced to compound-specific content and cross-references the relevant standards for the general procedure, which shortens it substantially without removing what is not available elsewhere.
- Every contributing trial shares one sponsor and the monograph does not say so — arising from DRAFT-LARAZOTIDE-M/007. Sponsor concentration is now stated with the certainty rating, and the monograph records how many independent sponsors contributed evidence to each assessed outcome.
- Two factual descriptions of the sponsor's programme are inaccurate — arising from DRAFT-LARAZOTIDE-M/006. 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…
- Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence — arising from DRAFT-LARAZOTIDE-M/002. A standing formulation has been adopted and is applied wherever an evidence gap is recorded, distinguishing an outcome assessed and not demonstrated from an outcome not assessed. The formulation is identical at every occurrence so that it can be recognised at…
- Adverse event frequencies are given without the denominator or the exposure period — arising from DRAFT-LARAZOTIDE-M/008. Every reported frequency now carries the number of participants, the number of events and the exposure period, and comparator-arm figures are reported alongside rather than in a separate table.
- The monograph does not tell a reader that a stated mass may be substantially counter-ion and water — arising from DRAFT-LARAZOTIDE-M/004. 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.
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.
Compound Evidence Institute · CEI-CP-060/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-larazotide-monograph/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026