Draft monograph: Teduglutide — submissions
The 7 submissions received, published in full with declared interests and secretariat responses.
§2Submissions and responses
7 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 monograph should reproduce the approved labelling rather than paraphrase it
The submission is made on behalf of the marketing-authorisation holder. It states that the draft paraphrases the approved indication, the posology and the contraindications, and that any paraphrase risks diverging from the authorised text.
The sponsor asks that the authorised wording be reproduced verbatim in each case, and offers the current summary of product characteristics as the source.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. The authorised indication and the contraindications are reproduced verbatim and attributed. The posology is not, because the monograph reports what the trials administered as well as what the labelling authorises, and the two are frequently different.
The approved indication and contraindications are now reproduced verbatim from the named authorisation with its version and date, and the posology section reports the labelled schedule and the schedules studied side by side, with the source of each stated.
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.
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.
Storage and reconstitution guidance is given without stating what it rests on
The draft states storage conditions and a period of use after reconstitution. The respondent asks what evidence supports the period, and states that in the absence of a stability study on this presentation the figure is a convention rather than a finding.
The respondent proposes that any in-use period be accompanied by the stability evidence that produced it, or removed.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. The period is retained where a stability study on a comparable presentation exists and is cited. Where no such study exists the figure is removed rather than annotated, because an annotated figure is still a figure a reader will use.
In-use periods now appear only where supported by a cited stability determination on a stated presentation, and elsewhere the monograph records that no in-use stability evidence was identified for this presentation.
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 analytical section is longer than the clinical assessment it accompanies
The respondent, an academic pharmacologist, states that the analytical section occupies more of the monograph than the assessment of clinical effect, and that the proportions imply the Institute considers the analytical question the more important one.
The respondent proposes that the analytical material be moved to the standards series and referenced rather than reproduced.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. The general analytical material is moved to the standards series and referenced. The compound-specific material stays, because a reader holding a certificate for this compound needs to know what that certificate does and does not establish for this compound.
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.
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.
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.