Draft monograph: CJC-1295 — submissions
The 13 submissions received, published in full with declared interests and secretariat responses.
§2Submissions and responses
13 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 indication table mixes approved indications with uses for which the compound is merely supplied
The respondent submits on the draft monograph for CJC-1295. Growth-hormone-axis compounds are supplied widely and studied narrowly, and a document about one should make that asymmetry visible.
The indication table lists indications in a single sequence. Some are approved by a competent authority, some are the subject of trials that have not reported, and some are uses observed in supply with no trial evidence at all.
The respondent states that the three categories should not share a table without being distinguished in it.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A shared table is an implicit claim of comparable standing.
The indication table now carries a status column with three values, approved, under investigation and supplied without trial evidence, and the value is stated for every row. Rows in the third category also state that no certainty rating is assigned because there is no evidence base to rate.
Point estimates are given without an interval
Having read the draft monograph on CJC-1295, the respondent puts one point to the committee.
Several estimates in the draft appear as single figures. The respondent states that a point estimate without an interval invites a precision the underlying data do not support, and that the effect is worst where the estimate is drawn from a small contributing set.
The respondent proposes that no point estimate appear anywhere in the document set without its interval, including in summary tables and in the abstract.
The respondent endorses the general approach taken in submission 001 and asks that it be extended to the matter identified here.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. Intervals are added wherever the source reports one. The proposal is declined for figures the source published without an interval, because the Institute will not compute an interval a source did not report.
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.
The monograph does not tell a reader that two vials of the same compound may not contain the same thing
This is a submission on CJC-1295.
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 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.
What happens when the compound is stopped is not addressed
This submission concerns the draft on CJC-1295 and is made from an endocrine standpoint.
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.
Registered trials that never reported are absent from the monograph
The respondent notes that CJC-1295 is supplied for indications that no trial in the draft addresses, and submits in that context.
The respondent states that the trial list appears to be drawn from published reports, and that registered trials which completed without a report are therefore invisible. The proportion of a programme that never reported is itself a finding about the evidence base.
The respondent proposes that every registered trial of the compound be listed, with its reporting status, whether or not a report exists.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A trial list built from publications reproduces publication bias in the shape of the document.
The trial list now includes every registered trial the Institute identified, with its reporting status stated, and the monograph reports the proportion of registered trials for which no result has been posted or published.
The analytical section is longer than the clinical assessment it accompanies
The respondent’s comment on the draft for CJC-1295 arises from the anti-doping literature, in which this class is well represented and clinically it is not.
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.
The analytical section assumes a reference standard that is not generally available
The respondent has read the draft covering CJC-1295 and makes one submission.
The draft describes identity and content determinations that require a reference standard of assigned content. For this compound no such standard is in general circulation, and a laboratory following the section as written cannot perform the determination described.
The respondent, employed by a contract analytical laboratory, proposes that the monograph state explicitly where a reference standard is unavailable and what a determination performed without one can still establish.
This submission is made in the same spirit as submission 002 and on a different aspect of the draft.
The secretariat accepts this submission. The section described an ideal case and did not say so.
The analytical section now states whether a reference standard is in general circulation for this compound and, where it is not, states which determinations remain possible and which become qualitative. A content figure obtained without a reference standard is recorded as an estimate against a stated assumption rather than as a determination.
The preclinical section is extensive and the clinical section is not
The draft on CJC-1295 was read from the standpoint of a clinician asked about the compound by people already taking it.
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.
The compound is supplied under names the monograph does not list
Having read the draft under consultation, which concerns CJC-1295, the respondent submits as follows.
The respondent states that the compound is supplied under several trade names, research codes and transliterations, and that a reader holding a label bearing one of them will not find the monograph.
A list of names observed in supply, with the source of each observation, accompanied the submission.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A monograph a reader cannot find is not serving the reader.
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.
Declared interests should appear on the document rather than on a separate page
This submission concerns CJC-1295 and a convention used across the Institute’s output.
The draft links to a central conflicts register. The respondent argues that a reader assessing whether to rely on a particular document should not have to leave it to find out who assessed it and what they declared.
The respondent proposes that the interests of every named contributor to a document be printed on that document.
The secretariat notes this submission and records that the draft already provides for it, which the respondent could reasonably have missed because the provision sits in an appendix.
Every document carries the declared interests of its named contributors in its front matter, and the central register exists so that a reader can see a person across all documents rather than one at a time. No amendment arises; the provision has been moved from the appendix into the body of the methodology document so that it is findable.
The recorded evidence gaps omit outcomes a reader would consider material
This submission concerns the draft on CJC-1295. The respondent works in an endocrine service in which compounds of this class are assessed.
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 certainty rating for the principal assessed outcome cannot be traced to the contributing trials
The respondent submits on CJC-1295, on a matter that is not specific to this draft but is visible in it.
The draft states a certainty rating for the principal assessed outcome and lists the contributing trials, but does not state which domain drove the downgrade. A reader who disagrees with the rating cannot tell whether the disagreement concerns risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness or inconsistency.
The respondent proposes that each rating carry its downgrade reasons explicitly, in the same row as the rating, so that a reader can accept the evidence assessment while disputing a single domain judgement.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A rating without its reasoning is an assertion, and the draft asserted rather than showed.
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.
Anti-drug antibody data are omitted
The respondent read the draft on CJC-1295 and has confined this submission to a single matter.
The respondent states that immunogenicity is measured in the development programmes of peptide therapeutics and that the monograph does not report it, leaving a reader unable to judge whether loss of effect over time has an immunological explanation.
The respondent proposes that anti-drug antibody incidence and its relation to effect be reported for every compound in the series.
The respondent’s submission overlaps with submission 011 and was prepared without sight of it.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. Immunogenicity is reported where a contributing trial reported it. The proposal to report it for every compound is declined because for many compounds in the series no such data exist and a uniformly empty row is not informative.
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.
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.