Draft monograph: Semaglutide, oral — 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.
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.
The compound is supplied under names the monograph does not list
The respondent states that the compound is supplied under several trade names, research codes and transliterations, and that a reader holding a label bearing one of them will not find the monograph.
A list of names observed in supply, with the source of each observation, accompanied the submission.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A monograph a reader cannot find is not serving the reader.
The synonym list is extended to include every name the Institute can evidence from a document it holds, each recorded with its source. Names asserted without a supporting document are not added, and the distinction is stated at the head of the list.
Where the compound is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, the cardiovascular outcome evidence should be an assessed outcome
The respondent states that for compounds in this class the cardiovascular outcome evidence, reported for semaglutide in SELECT in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2023 and for liraglutide in LEADER in the same journal in 2016, is the evidence a prescribing decision most often turns on, and that the draft treats it as background.
The respondent proposes that cardiovascular outcomes be an assessed outcome with its own certainty rating for every compound in the class for which such a trial exists.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. Cardiovascular outcomes become an assessed outcome where a dedicated outcome trial of the compound exists. The proposal to extend the rating across the class by inference is declined, in line with the treatment of class-level extrapolation elsewhere in the series.
Cardiovascular outcomes are now an assessed outcome with their own certainty rating in every monograph for which a dedicated cardiovascular outcome trial of that compound has reported, and are recorded as not assessed elsewhere.
The indication table mixes approved indications with uses for which the compound is merely supplied
The indication table lists indications in a single sequence. Some are approved by a competent authority, some are the subject of trials that have not reported, and some are uses observed in supply with no trial evidence at all.
The respondent, employed by a national competent authority and writing in a personal capacity, states that the three categories should not share a table without being distinguished in it.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A shared table is an implicit claim of comparable standing.
The indication table now carries a status column with three values, approved, under investigation and supplied without trial evidence, and the value is stated for every row. Rows in the third category also state that no certainty rating is assigned because there is no evidence base to rate.
Declared interests should appear on the document rather than on a separate page
The draft links to a central conflicts register. The respondent argues that a reader assessing whether to rely on a particular document should not have to leave it to find out who assessed it and what they declared.
The respondent proposes that the interests of every named contributor to a document be printed on that document.
The secretariat notes this submission and records that the draft already provides for it, which the respondent could reasonably have missed because the provision sits in an appendix.
Every document carries the declared interests of its named contributors in its front matter, and the central register exists so that a reader can see a person across all documents rather than one at a time. No amendment arises; the provision has been moved from the appendix into the body of the methodology document so that it is findable.
The document should state what a reader ought to do
The draft assesses evidence and stops. The respondent, a practising clinician, states that a reader arriving at the document with a decision to make is left to convert an assessment into an action without help, and proposes that each document close with a recommendation.
The respondent argues that other evidence bodies issue recommendations and that declining to do so transfers the difficult part of the work to the reader.
The secretariat does not accept this submission, and records that the point is a reasonable one rather than a misunderstanding.
The Institute assesses evidence and does not issue recommendations, because a recommendation embeds values and a resource context that the Institute does not hold and cannot state. That constitutional limit is published on the methodology page and is not varied by consultation. The submission remains published in full.
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.
Registered trials that never reported are absent from the monograph
The respondent states that the trial list appears to be drawn from published reports, and that registered trials which completed without a report are therefore invisible. The proportion of a programme that never reported is itself a finding about the evidence base.
The respondent proposes that every registered trial of the compound be listed, with its reporting status, whether or not a report exists.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A trial list built from publications reproduces publication bias in the shape of the document.
The trial list now includes every registered trial the Institute identified, with its reporting status stated, and the monograph reports the proportion of registered trials for which no result has been posted or published.
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.
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.