Draft monograph: MOTS-c — 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.
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 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 pharmacokinetic section does not connect half-life to the dosing schedule
The draft reports a half-life and, separately, a dosing interval. The respondent, a clinical pharmacologist, states that the relationship between the two is what determines accumulation and time to steady state, and that the monograph leaves the reader to derive it.
The respondent proposes that time to steady state be stated explicitly, with the assumption from which it was derived.
The secretariat accepts this submission. The derivation is short, it is decision-relevant, and leaving it to the reader invites it to be done wrong.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.