Draft monograph: Exenatide — 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.
The document set should be published in translation
The draft on Exenatide is a substantial document and the respondent has confined this submission to one matter.
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.
Evidence for one member of the class is presented as evidence for this compound
The respondent submits on the draft monograph for Exenatide. The observation arises from teaching the material rather than from prescribing it.
The draft supports a statement about this compound with a citation to a trial of a different compound in the same class. The respondent states that a class-level inference is a judgement that should be labelled as one rather than presented as direct evidence.
The respondent proposes that any class-level extrapolation be flagged at the point of use and excluded from the certainty rating for the compound itself.
This submission should be read alongside submission 001, which arises on the same draft.
The secretariat accepts this submission. Moderate certainty evidence supports several class-level statements in this area, but a class-level statement is not evidence about a particular member of the class.
Class-level inferences are now labelled at the point of use, are excluded from the certainty rating for the compound, and are reported in a separate subsection stating which compound the underlying evidence concerns.
The interaction section lists mechanisms rather than interactions
This submission addresses the draft monograph on Exenatide. The respondent went through the document twice, once as a specialist and once as a reader arriving without the background.
The section describes pathways by which an interaction could occur. It does not say which interactions have been observed, in what setting, or with what consequence. A reader dispensing alongside other therapy cannot act on a mechanism.
The respondent proposes that observed interactions be separated from theoretical ones, and that the theoretical ones be labelled as such.
The secretariat accepts the separation and declines to expand the section beyond the evidence.
The interaction section is now divided into interactions reported in clinical use and interactions predicted from mechanism, with the second labelled as prediction. Where neither exists the section says so in one line rather than being padded.
The analytical section is longer than the clinical assessment it accompanies
This is a submission on the draft covering Exenatide, from a respondent whose work is with the people taking compounds of this class rather than with the trials that produced them.
The respondent 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.
What happens when the compound is stopped is not addressed
The draft on Exenatide was read in full. The respondent notes at the outset that this class has an unusually deep randomised evidence base, and that a monograph on it is fairly judged against a higher standard than one on a compound with none.
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 pharmacokinetic section does not connect half-life to the dosing schedule
Having reviewed the draft on Exenatide, the respondent makes a single submission, on the view that one point put clearly is more use to the secretariat than six put together.
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 does not tell a reader that two vials of the same compound may not contain the same thing
The respondent read the draft on Exenatide alongside the approved labelling for the class, and submits on one matter arising.
The analytical section describes what a determination measures and the supply section describes what suppliers document. Neither says that the quantity of peptide in two vials bearing the same label may differ by more than the difference between two doses in the trial schedule.
The respondent proposes an explicit statement, in §8, that a purity figure describes the lot it was measured on and nothing else, and that the practical consequence is that a dose calculated from a label is an estimate.
The respondent has read submission 001 and puts a further matter to the secretariat.
The secretariat accepts this submission. It is the single most consequential thing a reader of this series can be told and it was distributed across three sections rather than stated once.
A standing paragraph now appears at the head of §8 in every monograph, stating that a determination applies to the lot measured and that a label mass is not a determination.
The monograph should reproduce the approved labelling rather than paraphrase it
This submission concerns the draft on Exenatide. The respondent assesses incretin-class evidence for a national body and comments in a personal capacity.
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 respondent has read submission 005 and asks that this submission be considered with it.
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.
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.