1 Boring Old Man

Dear Members,

This week, The BMJ published a study, “Restoring Study 329: efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence,” which reanalyzes data from a clinical trial performed in the late 1990s and published in JAACAP in 2001. The conclusions of this article contradict those of the original study. Please know that the Academy has been fully aware of the pending publication of this article by The BMJ.

Research provides the foundation for child and adolescent psychiatry’s knowledge base. The Academy encourages rigorous scientific design and methodology and supports the highest ethical and professional standards. We also believe it is essential that research be conducted within a strong framework of transparency and disclosure. As an organization, AACAP has been a leader in advocating for the positive changes that have taken place in the last decade in the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and academic and professional associations.

As the leading national professional medical association dedicated to promoting the healthy development of children, adolescents, and families, through advocacy, education, and research, our response to The BMJ publication is as follows:

• AACAP has the utmost respect for the The BMJ and we thank them for their continued efforts to further scientific knowledge and understanding.
• AACAP supports transparency in clinical trial reporting and welcomes the RIAT initiative, which enables publicly available primary data to be reanalyzed and published as new, potentially revised reports.
• JAACAP is a forum for scientific reporting and scholarly discussion. The scientific process builds on itself over time through a cycle of new research, analysis, and ongoing dialog. This process stimulates debate and moves the field forward toward a better understanding of critical issues.
• As with most medical journals, JAACAP operates with full editorial independence. AACAP does not influence or direct decisions regarding specific publications. Furthermore, the statements and opinions expressed in JAACAP articles are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of AACAP, the editors, or the publisher. Inquiries about the articles and study in question should be addressed to their respective authors.

Moving forward, we will continue to monitor any developments and keep the membership informed of relevant information as it becomes available. Please direct any questions to the Communications Department via email at communications@aacap.org.

Thank you for your continued support!
Paramjit T. Joshi, MD
President, AACAP

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

3615 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. | Washington, D.C.20016-3007 | Phone: 202.966.7300 | Fax: 202.966.2891

www.aacap.org

Dear __________,

As many of you are already aware, The BMJ recently published a reanalysis¹ of clinical trial data (study 329) that is inconsistent with the results of a study originally published in JAACAP in 2001.²

This reanalysis does not come as a surprise. Under the Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) initiative, originally proposed in 2013,³ research groups are encouraged to use publicly available data to publish new, potentially revised reports of past clinical trials, and we had anticipated that study 329 would be among the first to be revisited.

Since I became editor-in-chief in 2008, nearly seven years after the original article’s publication, we have received a number of inquiries about study 329. JAACAP takes seriously its responsibility to ensure scientific integrity, and manages allegations of scientific misconduct and breaches of publication ethics according to guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).⁴ JAACAP’s editorial team has reviewed allegations against study 329 several times over, and after thorough assessment, found no basis for editorial action regarding the 2001 article.

JAACAP represents a collaborative effort designed to disseminate research findings and facilitate discussion within our community. The scientific process is one of continual evolution – a cycle that advances with each new replication, refinement, or rejection of past findings. Under the vast umbrella of scientific research and reporting, we must always make room for opposing views and varying interpretations. There can be no final word on any subject, but our common goal must be the same: to advance the science of pediatric mental health and to promote the care of youth and their families.

Sincerely,
Andrés Martin, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief

¹ Restoring Study 329: efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence. BMJ. 2015;351:h4320.
² Efficacy of paroxetine in the treatment of adolescent major depression: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001;40:762-772.
³ Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings. BMJ. 2013;346:f2865.
⁴ Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

3615 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. | Washington, D.C.20016-3007 | Phone: 202.966.7300 | Fax: 202.966.2891

www.aacap.org