Public comment period · §3
Draft monograph: Exenatide — disposition
The disposition of every submission and the amendments that resulted.
§3Disposition and amendments
§3.1Disposition table
Table 1. Every submission with its disposition. Each row links to the submission in full.
| Reference | Respondent | Point raised | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| DRAFT-EXENATIDE-MO/002 | Ms Rhiannon Okoye-Vandergraaf | Regulatory status is stated without naming the jurisdiction | Accepted |
| DRAFT-EXENATIDE-MO/001 | Dr Fenella Steenkamp-Ferreira | Every contributing trial shares one sponsor and the monograph does not say so | Accepted |
| DRAFT-EXENATIDE-MO/003 | Xiomara Fairweather-Duru | The monograph should state what the compound costs | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-EXENATIDE-MO/004 | Dr Stellan Cholmondeley-Ade industry | Two factual descriptions of the sponsor's programme are inaccurate | Accepted |
| DRAFT-EXENATIDE-MO/005 | Dr Leonhard Quenneville | The document set should be published in translation | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-EXENATIDE-MO/006 | Dr Ilona Mbatha-Fredriksen | The monograph does not tell a reader that a stated mass may be substantially counter-ion and water | Accepted |
| DRAFT-EXENATIDE-MO/007 | Dr Lorcan Whitmarsh-Obi | Effect estimates are given without naming the comparator | Accepted |
| DRAFT-EXENATIDE-MO/008 | Dr Kolawole Isaksen-Balogun | Storage and reconstitution guidance is given without stating what it rests on | Accepted in part |
| 8 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 5 | The submission is accepted and the draft is amended as proposed. The amendment is recorded in the amendment log of the document it changed and is traceable to the numbered submission. |
| Accepted in part | 1 | Part of the submission is accepted and part is not. The secretariat response states which part is which and on what ground the remainder was declined. |
| Noted, no amendment | 0 | The submission raises a point the Institute accepts but that does not require a change to the draft, most often because the draft already states it elsewhere. The location is given in the response. |
| Not accepted | 2 | The submission is not accepted. The secretariat response gives the reason. A submission that is not accepted remains published in full; the Institute does not remove a submission because it disagrees with it. |
§3.3Resulting amendments
- Regulatory status is stated without naming the jurisdiction — arising from DRAFT-EXENATIDE-MO/002. Every regulatory status statement now names the authority, states the date on which the status was verified, and is recorded per jurisdiction rather than as a single global assertion.
- Every contributing trial shares one sponsor and the monograph does not say so — arising from DRAFT-EXENATIDE-MO/001. Sponsor concentration is now stated with the certainty rating, and the monograph records how many independent sponsors contributed evidence to each assessed outcome.
- Two factual descriptions of the sponsor's programme are inaccurate — arising from DRAFT-EXENATIDE-MO/004. 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 monograph does not tell a reader that a stated mass may be substantially counter-ion and water — arising from DRAFT-EXENATIDE-MO/006. 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.
- Effect estimates are given without naming the comparator — arising from DRAFT-EXENATIDE-MO/007. The comparator is now stated in every outcome row, and estimates against different comparators are reported in separate tables with the comparator named in the table caption.
- Storage and reconstitution guidance is given without stating what it rests on — arising from DRAFT-EXENATIDE-MO/008. 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.
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.
Compound Evidence Institute · CEI-CP-049/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-exenatide-monograph/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026