Draft monograph: Thymalin — submissions
The 10 submissions received, published in full with declared interests and secretariat responses.
§2Submissions and responses
10 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.
A near-isobaric analogue is not distinguished by the identity determination described
The identity determination described in the draft resolves the compound from unrelated substances but would not distinguish it from a closely related analogue whose mass differs by approximately one dalton.
The respondent proposes that the monograph state the resolution required for that discrimination, and state that a nominal-mass instrument reporting an integer mass has not made it.
The secretariat accepts this submission. The point is decisive where one member of a near-isobaric pair is an approved medicine and the other is not.
The analytical section now states the resolving power required to discriminate the pair, names the pair explicitly, and records that an identity claim made below that resolution is not conformant with the identity standard.
The recorded evidence gaps omit outcomes a reader would consider material
The evidence-gap section records what has not been studied. The respondent, a practising clinician, states that the list is drawn from the outcomes the trials chose to measure and therefore reproduces the sponsor's outcome selection rather than correcting for it.
The respondent proposes that the gap list be constructed from the outcomes a prescribing decision turns on, and that outcomes measured by no trial appear in it as such.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. The gap list is reconstructed from the decision-relevant outcome set rather than from the measured set. The proposal that every unmeasured outcome be listed is declined, because an unbounded list of things not studied is not a finding.
The evidence-gap section is now derived from the anchor and decision-relevant outcomes for the indication, and any such outcome measured by no contributing trial is recorded as not measured rather than omitted.
The preclinical section is extensive and the clinical section is not
The draft summarises a large animal literature and a small or absent human literature. The respondent states that the resulting document reads as though a great deal is known, when what is known concerns rodents.
The respondent proposes that the preclinical section be reduced to a statement of what has been observed in animals and that the detail be removed entirely.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. The section is shortened and given a standing statement. The proposal to remove the detail is declined, because a reader encountering claims derived from that literature needs to be able to see what it actually contains.
The preclinical section is reduced in length, placed after the clinical assessment rather than before it, and opens with a standing statement that an effect observed in an animal model is not a clinical outcome and does not support a certainty rating.
A purity figure from a certificate is quoted as though it were a content figure
The draft quotes a purity percentage from supply documentation in a sentence about how much compound a vial contains. Chromatographic purity is a relative area within what was detected; it is not a mass fraction and it does not bound vial content.
The respondent, an analytical chemist, proposes that purity and content never appear in the same sentence without an explicit statement that they answer different questions.
The secretariat accepts this submission. The conflation is the error the Institute most often corrects in supply documentation, and it appeared in an Institute draft.
Purity and content are now reported in separate rows with separate definitions, and the monograph states that a purity figure sets no bound on content and that a content figure requires a determination against a standard of assigned content.
A superseded version should remain reachable from the version that replaced it
The respondent states that the draft supersedes an earlier document and that a reader who cited the earlier version has no way to reach it from the new one, which makes it impossible to see what changed.
The respondent asks that every version carry a link both to what it supersedes and to what supersedes it.
The secretariat notes this submission. The corrections and versioning policy already requires bidirectional version links and every superseded document is retained at its own address.
No amendment arises. The requirement is stated in the corrections and versioning policy and the amendment log of this document links to the version it replaced. The respondent is correct that the link was absent from the draft page furnished for consultation, which was a defect of the consultation copy and not of the policy.
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 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.
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 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 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.
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.