Draft standard CEI-MS-06: Sterility testing of peptide… — submissions
The 13 submissions received, published in full with declared interests and secretariat responses.
§2Submissions and responses
13 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 additional determinations required would materially increase release testing cost
The submission is made on behalf of a manufacturer. It states that the draft adds two determinations to those in existing compendial practice, and estimates the additional analytical burden per batch.
The submission does not dispute the analytical reasoning and asks that one of the two be made conditional rather than universal.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. One determination is made conditional on a stated risk factor. The other is retained because the evidence supplied by the respondent does not bear on whether it is necessary, only on what it costs.
One of the two determinations is now required only where the stated risk factor is present, with the factor defined in the scope, and the other is retained as a universal requirement with the reasoning stated. The submission is identified as an industry submission.
Nothing in the standard addresses transfer of the method between laboratories
The respondent states that determinations under this standard will be performed by different laboratories on the same material and that without transfer criteria their results are not comparable.
The respondent proposes a transfer protocol with acceptance criteria for inter-laboratory agreement.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. Acceptance criteria for agreement between laboratories are added. A full transfer protocol is not, because transfer is a quality-system activity rather than a determination and the series does not address quality systems.
The standard now states the maximum difference between laboratories analysing the same sample at which results are treated as agreeing, and requires that a comparison across laboratories state whether that criterion was met.
The search date is not on the face of the document
The draft carries a publication date and a review date but not the date on which the evidence was last searched. Those are three different dates and only the third tells a reader how current the assessment is. A document published in one quarter may rest on a search run two quarters earlier, and nothing on the page allows that gap to be measured.
The respondent proposes that the search date be printed adjacent to every certainty rating rather than in the methods section, on the ground that a reader who acts on a rating is unlikely to have read the methods section first.
The secretariat accepts this submission. The distinction between publication, review and search dates is real and the draft did not make it visible where it mattered.
The search date is now printed adjacent to every certainty rating and is carried in the document metadata, so that the interval between the search and the reading is visible without reference to the methods section.
The matrix interferes with the determination and no control is required
The respondent states that the matrices in scope can suppress or enhance the response, and that without an inhibition and enhancement control a result cannot be attributed to the analyte.
Data showing recovery outside acceptable limits in an uncontrolled matrix accompanied the submission.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A determination on an interfering matrix without a validated control establishes nothing, and the draft permitted one.
An inhibition and enhancement control is now required for every determination under this standard, with stated recovery limits, and a determination reported without it is recorded as not conformant rather than as a low result.
Nothing requires a laboratory to demonstrate ongoing performance
The respondent states that suitability criteria assessed within a run demonstrate that the run worked and not that the laboratory performs consistently over time.
The respondent proposes participation in a proficiency scheme as a condition of conformance.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. A trend requirement on system suitability data is added. Proficiency scheme participation is not made a condition of conformance, for the same reason competence requirements are not.
The standard now requires that system suitability results be trended across runs and that a determination report whether the trend was within the laboratory's stated limits, which places the demonstration inside the document the Institute can read.
Results are reported without an estimate of measurement uncertainty
The respondent, an analytical chemist, states that a figure reported to one decimal place implies an uncertainty the standard nowhere estimates, and that two determinations differing within the uncertainty will be read as a difference.
The respondent proposes that an uncertainty budget be required for every determination.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. A repeatability figure and a stated reporting precision are required. A full uncertainty budget is not, because the standard is written to be usable by laboratories that do not maintain one and the requirement would exclude them without improving the reading.
Every determination now reports the repeatability observed in the run, the reporting precision, and a statement that two results differing by less than the stated repeatability are not distinguishable by this method.
The standard assumes a reference standard of known assigned content
The respondent states that for many compounds in scope no reference standard with an assigned content exists, and that the standard as drafted has nothing to say to a laboratory in that position.
The respondent proposes that the standard state what can be determined without one and how such a determination should be labelled.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A standard applicable only where a reference standard exists is silent in the cases most in need of it.
The standard now states which determinations remain available without a reference standard of assigned content, requires that such determinations be labelled as relative rather than absolute, and requires the assumption used in place of an assigned content to be stated.
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 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.
Terms are used in senses that differ from established pharmacopoeial usage
The respondent, employed by a national competent authority and writing in a personal capacity, identifies three terms used in the draft in senses that differ from their established pharmacopoeial meanings.
The respondent proposes that established usage be followed or that the departure be stated explicitly at first use.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A term used in a private sense inside a document that will be read alongside compendial texts is a source of avoidable error.
The three terms now follow established pharmacopoeial usage, the glossary records the definition and its source, and where the Institute uses a term in a narrower sense the departure is stated at first use in the standard.
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.
The scope does not say which materials the standard excludes
The scope states what the standard applies to. The respondent states that in practice the difficult question is whether a borderline material is in scope, and that the draft leaves it to be inferred.
The respondent proposes an explicit exclusion list.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A scope stated only positively is a scope that will be stretched.
The scope now states both what the standard applies to and what it does not, with the excluded classes named and, where another standard covers them, cross-referenced.
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.
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.