Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 8, 2021
Decision Letter - Kaisar Raza, Editor

PONE-D-21-32370Pharmacokinetics of a 503B outsourcing facility-produced theophylline in dogsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Reinhart,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 07 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kaisar Raza

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional details regarding participant consent from the owners of the animals. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, the authors aimed to establish oral, single-dose pharmacokinetic parameters of a 503B outsourcing facility-produced theophylline (OFT) in dogs. The authors suggest that the OFT is well absorbed and can likely be dosed twice daily in dogs and the dose of 10 mg/kg are predicted to achieve concentrations that may be therapeutic.

The subject of the manuscript is original and falls within the scope of the journal. I think this study provides scientifically valuable data for the literature.

Some modifications are needed for the MS according to the points that I have indicated.

1.Lines 23-24: “… 503B outsourcing facility that manufactures veterinary drugs (OFT), …”, but in Lines 56-57: “… a 503B outsourcing facility-produced theophylline (OFT) in dogs”. Please revise the first abbreviation in the abstract.

2.Line 64: “At the time of the study…”. Before the study, the animals should not have taken any medication for a certain period!

3.Lines 75-79: “This study was conducted in two phases …” or two-way crossover?

4.Lines 79-82: There was a possibility of pharmacokinetic interaction between these drugs used for sedation and drugs studied, and this point should be discussed in the manuscript!

5.Lines 75-90: Was there any fasting or food restriction applied before or after drug administration? Need more information.

6.Lines 88-90: How were the tablets administered to dogs? Were they given with some water?

7.Line 102 and 108: Should be “Phoenix WinNonlin”.

8.Table 1: Please give bioavailability as “F (%)”

9.Line 168: “… these are no longer commercially available”. In the US?

10.There are large inter-individual variations for MAT and t1/2 values in the oral OFT group. The possible reasons should be discussed in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well written and planned. The study is well supported with the pharmacokinetic assessment and is recommended for publication.

1. What about the ethical issues regarding deploying canines for the present study?

2. The authors should specify the breed of each subject(canine) in the manuscript as only non-beagle is mentioned for some canines.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript is sound. However, the paper deals with outsourced facility-produced theophylline, a brief disclosure of the formulation is required. An account of previous PK studies should also be incorporated and compared.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Cengiz Gokbulut

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

We are grateful to the editor and reviewers for their suggestions and recommendations. We have done our best to address all concerns. Please see below for a point-by-point response.

Response to Editor’s Comments:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

- Section headers have been reformatted

- File and Tables have been reformatted as well as in text citations of these

- In text references have been changed from parentheses to brackets

- Authors lists in the reference section have been reduced to a maximum of 6 authors per reference

- Figure file names have been updated and supplementary material has been divided into individual files (pdf for tables and tiff for figures)

- Title page updated

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional details regarding participant consent from the owners of the animals. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

The following statement was added to the methods section “Written, informed consent was obtained from owners of all animals included” on lines 61-62.

Response to Reviewer Comments:

Reviewer #1:

1. Lines 23-24: “… 503B outsourcing facility that manufactures veterinary drugs (OFT), …”, but in Lines 56-57: “… a 503B outsourcing facility-produced theophylline (OFT) in dogs”. Please revise the first abbreviation in the abstract.

This statement has been changed to “A new, 503B outsourcing facility-produced theophylline product (OFT) is available for veterinary use.” Lines 23-24.

2. Line 64: “At the time of the study…”. Before the study, the animals should not have taken any medication for a certain period!

The following statement has been added “and for at least two weeks prior” Line 65.

3. Lines 75-79: “This study was conducted in two phases …” or two-way crossover?

Changed to: “This study was a two-way crossover design with an intravenous phase and an oral phase, separated by a 7-day washout period.” Line 130.

4. Lines 79-82: There was a possibility of pharmacokinetic interaction between these drugs used for sedation and drugs studied, and this point should be discussed in the manuscript!

Thank you for this comment. This has been added to the limitations section of the discussion. See line 360-365.

5. Lines 75-90: Was there any fasting or food restriction applied before or after drug administration? Need more information.

No there was not. Medication was administered without food restriction as would typically be done in small animal practice. This information is included on lines 152-154. “Dogs had free access to water throughout the study and were fed their normal diet in twice daily rations. On the first morning of each phase, the diet was fed just after drug administration.”

6. Lines 88-90: How were the tablets administered to dogs? Were they given with some water?

The following was added “with a small amount of wet food” Lines 157-158.

7. Line 102 and 108: Should be “Phoenix WinNonlin”.

Corrected

8. Table 1: Please give bioavailability as “F (%)”

Changed

9. Line 168: “… these are no longer commercially available”. In the US?

Correct, this has been added.

10. There are large inter-individual variations for MAT and t1/2 values in the oral OFT group. The possible reasons should be discussed in the manuscript.

This has been added to the discussion. Lines 300-325.

Reviewer #2:

1. What about the ethical issues regarding deploying canines for the present study?

Thank you for this point. We have added that we obtained written informed consent from owners of all dogs included in this study. See lines 98-99.

2. The authors should specify the breed of each subject(canine) in the manuscript as only non-beagle is mentioned for some canines.

This information is included in S1 Table.

Reviewer #3:

The manuscript is sound. However, the paper deals with outsourced facility-produced theophylline, a brief disclosure of the formulation is required.

Thank you for this point. The following statement has been added: “The OFT is formulated with an excipient having a polymeric backbone of cellulose in a specific ratio designed to regulate the release of theophylline from the tablet” Lin 125-127.

An account of previous PK studies should also be incorporated and compared.

Thank you for this suggestion. Stylistically, it is our preference to compare our results to previous PK studies within the context of discussing our results, as we have done throughout the first two paragraphs of the discussion. We have added additional comparisons in the added discussion of interindividual variability in the third paragraph. Lines 300-325.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Kaisar Raza, Editor

Pharmacokinetics of a 503B outsourcing facility-produced theophylline in dogs

PONE-D-21-32370R1

Dear Dr. Reinhart,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Kaisar Raza

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Kaisar Raza, Editor

PONE-D-21-32370R1

Pharmacokinetics of a 503B outsourcing facility-produced theophylline in dogs

Dear Dr. Reinhart:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Kaisar Raza

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .