Public comment period · §3
Draft monograph: 5-amino-1MQ — 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-5-AMINO-1MQ-/001 | Dr Odalys Thorsby-Nakamura | The certainty rating for the principal assessed outcome cannot be traced to the contributing trials | Accepted |
| DRAFT-5-AMINO-1MQ-/002 | Dr Vittoria Quintanilha | Open-label extension data are presented alongside randomised data without distinction | Accepted |
| DRAFT-5-AMINO-1MQ-/003 | Dr Liesbeth Nyquist-Obiora | Guidance on lyophilised storage is missing | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-5-AMINO-1MQ-/004 | Dr Prosper Vercingetorix | The monograph should state what the compound costs | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-5-AMINO-1MQ-/005 | Dr Zdenka Nyquist-Obiora | The preclinical section is extensive and the clinical section is not | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-5-AMINO-1MQ-/006 | Dr Georgiana Mountstephen | Declared interests should appear on the document rather than on a separate page | Noted, no amendment |
| 6 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 2 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 1 | 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 certainty rating for the principal assessed outcome cannot be traced to the contributing trials — arising from DRAFT-5-AMINO-1MQ-/001. 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.
- Open-label extension data are presented alongside randomised data without distinction — arising from DRAFT-5-AMINO-1MQ-/002. Extension data now appear in a separate table headed as uncontrolled follow-up, with a standing note on differential withdrawal.
- The preclinical section is extensive and the clinical section is not — arising from DRAFT-5-AMINO-1MQ-/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.
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-040/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-5-amino-1mq-monograph/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026