aacap and jaacap respond…

Posted on Saturday 26 September 2015

[The following emails from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry were forwarded to me by members]

09/16/2015

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

09/25/2015

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

  1.  
    James O'Brien, M.D.
    September 26, 2015 | 11:15 AM
     

    “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”

    Dr. Popper would have Dr. Martin for lunch. No theory is falsifiable…science is now politics, and relativism rules.

    Masterful use of the rhetoric of open-mindedness in the service of being completely closed-minded.

    Anyone here still paying dues to AACAP or AMA?

  2.  
    Katie Tierney Higgins RN
    September 26, 2015 | 2:28 PM
     

    I doubt that dues paying members figure prominently in the AACAP’s or AMA?- did you mean APA’s agenda planning?; , anyway, neither organization is beholding to the pittance they receive from collecting dues.

    I am eagerly anticipating the impact of an expanding public response to these ivory tower minded folks. And I would encourage some brain storming and networking amongst all of you who are hoping for the requisite formidable challenge to the politics overtaking medicine/science.

    The RIAT team that restored science, actually the first group of scientists that thoroughly review Paxil Study 329, are the champions of the people and psych professionals like me, who have been banging their heads against the wall of the Ivory Tower. Is it truly impenetrable to scientific evidence? If so, who should be mobilized to ram this wall, mores than MH professionals themselves??

  3.  
    James O'Brien, M.D.
    September 26, 2015 | 4:40 PM
     

    Other confluences of interest:

    Congressmen voting on legislation based affecting parties that finance their campaign.

    SEC taking it easy on too big to fail firms knowing they will be eventually rewarded with a high paying job at an investment bank.

    NYC cops taking bribes from organized crime. Frank Serpico was just a divisive troublemaker.

  4.  
    Katie Tierney Higgins RN
    September 26, 2015 | 8:50 PM
     

    Congressman are sometimes just ignorant regarding the underlying agenda of legislation like the proposed SOPA bill in 2012, or currently, The 21st Century Cures Act- that streamlines an already dangerous fast track to market for new drugs and medical devices. Experts in the fields of science and technology are no longer available to congress, (Newt Gingrich felt these committees were a needless expense) Experts from the public sector need to assert themselves to translate and interpret shady legislation .There is nothing preventing experts from petitioning their elected representatives to hear testimony on sketchy bills like this one.

    Should we equate the loses incurred by consumers of unsafe medical treatments with those incurred by victims of banking scams? Is human life now just a commodity?

    Why would anyone speaking truth to power on the issues raised by the RIAT team find themselves in Serpico’s shoes? The resources, back up and support are spanning the same global territory as the market/potential victims occupy–All threatened by the same beast. Factor in the internet as the both connector and broadcaster and how long would it take to make a point regarding the power of 99% — compared to 1%. Larry Lessig, Harvard Law Professor, who assisted in the creation of the fellowship program where Bob Whitaker and Lisa Cosgrove studied the means for identifying institutional corruption, Professor Lessig quotes different statistics on this disparity–. He is an untapped resource who has put on record his disdain for the preferences of the federal criminal justice system regarding crimes to prosecute and citizens to persecute—. H e wrote the forward to “Psychiatry Under The Influence.” http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/view/10.1057/9781137516022.0003

    In the words of an ethicist I worked closely with at BCH, re: transforming a corrupt culture in medicine;
    “It will require a multi-prong approach, including significant pressure applied external to the institution.”
    She also said the change we were trying to create on the psych unit at BCH would take at least 5years- that was June 2010. So, already a bit behind schedule, but learning how many prongs it is apt to take to tackle a beast that is bigger than Harvard.

  5.  
    September 28, 2015 | 2:24 AM
     

    Recommended reading: Mistakes Were Made (but not by me) by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.