Public comment period · §3
Draft monograph: Pramlintide — 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-PRAMLINTIDE-/001 | Dr Lorcan Whitmarsh-Obi | The compound is supplied under names the monograph does not list | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/008 | Ms Rhiannon Okoye-Vandergraaf | Point estimates are given without an interval | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/011 | Dr Katarzyna Yorkstone | What happens when the compound is stopped is not addressed | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/009 | Nkechi Larsson-Ekwueme | Storage and reconstitution guidance is given without stating what it rests on | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/012 | Dr Lorcan Zaleski-Mbeki | The document set should be published in translation | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/003 | Dr Leonhard Quenneville | The search date is not on the face of the document | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/010 | Vittoria Quintanilha industry | The monograph should reproduce the approved labelling rather than paraphrase it | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/002 | Dr Kolawole Isaksen-Balogun | Anti-drug antibody data are omitted | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/005 | Xiomara Fairweather-Duru | The preclinical section is extensive and the clinical section is not | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/004 | Dr Ilona Mbatha-Fredriksen | The document should state what a reader ought to do | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/006 | Dr Stellan Cholmondeley-Ade | Declared interests should appear on the document rather than on a separate page | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/014 | Dr Jacinta Steenkamp-Ferreira | The pharmacokinetic section does not connect half-life to the dosing schedule | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/013 | Dr Mordecai Bellingham-Ojo | The population to which the headline estimate applies is not stated with the estimate | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/007 | Dr Fenella Steenkamp-Ferreira | Quantitative claims are reproduced without the method that produced them | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/015 | Quentin Gwynne-Sarpong | Doses are expressed in units that differ between sections | Accepted |
| 15 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 7 | 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 | 5 | 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 | 1 | 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
- The compound is supplied under names the monograph does not list — arising from DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/001. The synonym list is extended to include every name the Institute can evidence from a document it holds, each recorded with its source. Names asserted without a supporting document are not added, and the distinction is stated at the head of the list.
- Point estimates are given without an interval — arising from DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/008. 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.
- What happens when the compound is stopped is not addressed — arising from DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/011. 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.
- Storage and reconstitution guidance is given without stating what it rests on — arising from DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/009. 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 search date is not on the face of the document — arising from DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/003. 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 monograph should reproduce the approved labelling rather than paraphrase it — arising from DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/010. 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.
- Anti-drug antibody data are omitted — arising from DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/002. Anti-drug antibody incidence and any reported association with loss of effect are now reported where measured, and recorded as not measured where the contributing trials did not assess them.
- The preclinical section is extensive and the clinical section is not — arising from DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/005. 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.
- The pharmacokinetic section does not connect half-life to the dosing schedule — arising from DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/014. 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 population to which the headline estimate applies is not stated with the estimate — arising from DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/013. Every headline estimate now carries a one-line statement of the population in which it was observed, and the full eligibility criteria are reported in the included-studies table rather than only in the source.
- Quantitative claims are reproduced without the method that produced them — arising from DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/007. Every quantitative claim now carries the determination that produced it at the point of use, and figures obtained by non-comparable methods are no longer presented in the same row or sentence.
- Doses are expressed in units that differ between sections — arising from DRAFT-PRAMLINTIDE-/015. A single dose unit is now used throughout each monograph, with the source unit retained in parentheses wherever a conversion was applied, and every conversion is stated rather than performed silently.
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-071/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-pramlintide-monograph/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026