Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research: GPP3.

This updated Good Publication Practice (GPP) guideline, known as GPP3, builds on earlier versions and provides recommendations for individuals and organizations that contribute to the publication of research results sponsored or supported by pharmaceutical, medical device, diagnostics, and biotechnology companies. The recommendations are designed to help individuals and organizations maintain ethical and transparent publication practices and comply with legal and regulatory requirements. These recommendations cover publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations (oral or poster) at scientific congresses. The International Society for Medical Publication Professionals invited more than 3000 professionals worldwide to apply for a position on the steering committee, or as a reviewer, for this guideline. The GPP2 authors reviewed all applications (n = 241) and assembled an 18-member steering committee that represented 7 countries and a diversity of publication professions and institutions. From the 174 selected reviewers, 94 sent comments on the second draft, which steering committee members incorporated after discussion and consensus. The resulting guideline includes new sections (Principles of Good Publication Practice for Company-Sponsored Medical Research, Data Sharing, Studies That Should Be Published, and Plagiarism), expands guidance on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' authorship criteria and common authorship issues, improves clarity on appropriate author payment and reimbursement, and expands information on the role of medical writers. By following good publication practices (including GPP3), individuals and organizations will show integrity; accountability; and responsibility for accurate, complete, and transparent reporting in their publications and presentations.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study evaluating the effect of paliperidone extended-release tablets on sleep architecture in patients with schizophrenia.

The effects of paliperidone extended-release on sleep architecture in patients with schizophrenia-related insomnia were evaluated in this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Patients received paliperidone extended-release 9 mg/day or matching placebo during the 14-day double-blind phase. Sleep architecture and sleep continuity were evaluated using polysomnograms. Subjective sleep measures were evaluated daily using the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire. Efficacy and safety were also assessed. Thirty-six patients (17 on paliperidone extended-release, 19 on placebo; mean age 32.2 years) completed the study. Paliperidone extended-release treatment vs. placebo resulted in clinically and statistically significant differences in sleep measurements from baseline to endpoint including a reduction in: persistent sleep latency (41 min), sleep onset latency (35 min), number of awakenings after sleep onset (7), time awake in bed (50 min), and stage 1 sleep duration (12 min); prolongation in: total sleep time (53 min), sleep period time (42 min), stage 2 sleep duration (51 min), and rapid eye movement sleep duration (18 min); and an increase in sleep efficiency index (11%). Paliperidone extended-release, compared with placebo, did not exacerbate daytime somnolence and improved symptoms of schizophrenia. Paliperidone extended-release was well tolerated and improved sleep architecture and sleep continuity in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia and concomitant insomnia.

Effectiveness of ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy in modifying lipid profiles and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment in patients of different races and ethnicities: a substudy of the Ezetimibe add-on to statin for effectiveness trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the improvements in lipid profiles and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment found in the Ezetimibe Add-On to Statin for Effectiveness trial occurred equally in the black, Hispanic, and white patient populations enrolled in the study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients were recruited from 299 community-based practices across the United States (January to August 2003). Patients with, hypercholesterolemia and LDL-C levels exceeding National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III goals were randomized (2:1) to receive either ezetimibe (10 mg/d) or placebo in addition to their ongoing statin therapy for 6 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 5802 patients were screened at baseline for the Ezetimibe Add-On to Statin for Effectiveness study. Of these, 2772 were excluded, and the remaining 3030 eligible patients were randomized. Ezetimibe, compared with placebo, added to statin therapy significantly reduced LDL-C levels from statin-treated baseline by 23.0% (white patients), 23.0% (black patients), and 21.0% (Hispanic patients). This effect was consistent across race and ethnicity groups (P > .50 for treatment-by-race interactions). Ezetimibe added to statin therapy also statistically significantly (P < .001) increased the percentage of patients attaining their LDL-C goal for their National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III risk category in black (63.0%), Hispanic (64.8%), and white (72.3%) patients compared with placebo plus statin (32.9% black patients, 19.0% Hispanic patients, and 19.7% white patients). Ezetimibe treatment improved other lipid parameters across groups, including triglyceride, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non-high-density ilpoprotein cholesterol, and total cholesterol levels. Finally, the addition of ezetimibe reduced high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels overall, and no significant interaction of treatment by race occurred (P = .83), Indicating a consistent effect across races. Ezetimibe was generally well tolerated, and no detectable differences occurred in the adverse event profile by race or ethnicity. CONCLUSION: Ezetimibe added to statin therapy is effective and well tolerated for improving the lipid profile and LDL-C goal attainment of patients regardless of race or ethnicity.

Effectiveness and tolerability of simvastatin plus fenofibrate for combined hyperlipidemia (the SAFARI trial).

Patients with combined hyperlipidemia (elevated triglyceride [TG] levels, elevated low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol, and multiple lipoprotein abnormalities) are at increased risk for coronary heart disease. We conducted a multicenter (in the United States), randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 18-week study to determine if combination therapy with simvastatin plus fenofibrate is more effective in reducing elevated TG levels, thus improving the lipoprotein pattern in patients with combined hyperlipidemia compared with simvastatin monotherapy, and to evaluate safety and tolerability. Patients (aged 21 to 68 years) with a diagnosis of combined hyperlipidemia (fasting TG levels >/=150 and 130 mg/dl) received simvastatin monotherapy (20 mg/day, n = 207) or simvastatin 20 mg plus fenofibrate (160 mg/day) combination therapy (n = 411) for 12 weeks following a 6-week diet and placebo run-in period. From baseline to week 12, median TG levels decreased 43.0% (combination therapy) and 20.1% (simvastatin monotherapy [treatment difference -23.6%, p <0.001]). Mean LDL cholesterol levels decreased 31.2% and 25.8% (treatment difference -5.4%, p <0.001), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels increased 18.6% and 9.7% (treatment difference 8.8%, p <0.001) in the combination therapy versus monotherapy groups, respectively. No drug-related serious adverse experiences were observed. No patient experienced clinical myopathy or severe abnormalities in liver function. Combination therapy with simvastatin 20 mg and fenofibrate 160 mg in patients with combined hyperlipidemia resulted in additional improvement in all lipoprotein parameters measured compared with simvastatin 20 mg monotherapy and was well tolerated. Thus, this combination therapy is a beneficial therapeutic option for managing combined hyperlipidemia.

A community-based, randomized trial of ezetimibe added to statin therapy to attain NCEP ATP III goals for LDL cholesterol in hypercholesterolemic patients: the ezetimibe add-on to statin for effectiveness (EASE) trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level and improvement in National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) LDL-C goal attainment when ezetimibe was added to ongoing statin therapy in a diverse population of community-based patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (from January 2003 to August 2003), hypercholesterolemic patients (from 299 US primary care and specialty practices) with LDL-C levels exceeding NCEP ATP III goals were randomized (2:1) to receive ezetimibe (10 mg/d) or placebo in addition to their ongoing statin therapy for 6 weeks. RESULTS: In a study of 3030 randomized patients, ezetimibe added to statin therapy significantly reduced the LDL-C level by an additional 25.8% in the total population, compared with an additional 2.7% reduction with placebo plus statin (treatment difference, -23.1%; P<.001); the treatment difference ranged from -19.9% to -24.0% (P<.001) in each NCEP ATP III risk category subgroup. Significantly (P<.001) more patients (71.0%) treated with ezetimibe added to statin reached their NCEP ATP III target LDL-C level compared with those treated with placebo plus statin (20.6%). The addition of ezetimibe also resulted in improvement in other lipid parameters and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels. These benefits were consistent across sex, race, age, statin brand, and dose subgroups. Ezetimibe plus statin therapy was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to placebo plus statin. CONCLUSION: Across multiple subgroups, ezetimibe added to statin therapy consistently produced significant additional improvements in LDL-C levels and goal attainment, as well as in other lipoproteins, compared with addition of placebo. The addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy should be considered for patients not achieving their NCEP ATP III LDL-C goals while receiving statin therapy alone.

Effectiveness of the addition of ezetimibe to ongoing statin therapy in modifying lipid profiles and attaining low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals in older and elderly patients: subanalyses of data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Ezetimibe Add-on to Statin for Effectiveness (EASE) trial examined the effectiveness and safety profile of ezetimibe (EZE) added to ongoing statin therapy in 3030 patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels exceeding National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP 111) goals. OBJECTIVE: Because people aged > 65 years are at increased risk for development of coronary heart disease (CHD), these subgroup analyses of data from the EASE trial were conducted to determine the extent of change in LDL-C levels and attainment of NCEP ATP III LDL-C goals with the addition of EZE to ongoing statin therapy in patients aged 65 to 74 years (the older group) and > or = 75 years (the elderly group). METHODS: In the multicenter (299 sites), community-based, double-blind, placebo-controlled EASE trial, patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive EZE 10 mg/d or placebo in addition to their ongoing statin therapy for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the percent reduction in LDL-C levels, and the principal secondary end point was the proportion of patients achieving NCEP ATP III target LDL-C levels. The effects of the addition of EZE on additional lipid and lipoprotein measures and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein were also examined, as was tolerability. Study analyses were performed in the modified intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: This subgroup analysis included data from 841 patients in the older age group (579 EZE + statin, 262 placebo + statin), which constituted 27.8% of the overall EASE population, and 466 in the elderly group (307 EZE + statin, 159 placebo + statin), which constituted 15.4% of the overall EASE population. The former group included 436 (51.8%) men and 405 (48.2%) women, with a mean (SD) age of 69.2 (3.0) years; the latter group included 227 (48.7%) men and 239 (51.3%) women, with a mean age of 78.5 (3.2) years. The characteristics of the 2 groups were comparable at baseline. In the older group, 717 (85.3%) had CHD or a CHD risk equivalent, as did 421 (90.3%) of those in the elderly group. Thirty-two patients in the older group and 17 in the elderly group discontinued the study. The reasons for discontinuation included clinical adverse events (n = 23), withdrawal of consent (n = 15), loss to follow-up (n = 4), protocol deviation (n = 2), and other reasons (n = 5). EZE + statin significantly reduced LDL-C compared with placebo + statin (older group: mean [SE] treatment difference, -25.1% [1.4]; P < 0.001; elderly group: treatment difference, -22.0% [1.8]; P < 0.001). The LDL-Glowering effects of treatment were consistent in the 2 groups. EZE + statin therapy significantly improved other lipid parameters (triglycerides, non high density lipoprotein cholesterol, and total cholesterol, P < 0.001 in both age groups; high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, P < 0.03 in the older group only) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels compared with EZE + placebo (P < 0.03). The attainment of LDL-C goals also was significantly increased with EZE + statin compared with placebo + statin (older group: 72.3% vs 18.9%, respectively; odds ratio [OR] = 14.59; 95% CI, 9.55 to 22.28; P < 0.001; elderly group: 73.3% vs 18.9%; OR = 13.44; 95% CI, 7.72 to 23.41; P < 0.001). EZE + statin therapy was well tolerated by patients in both age groups, with a safety profile comparable to that of placebo + statin. CONCLUSIONS: In these older and elderly patients, many of them at high risk for CHD, EZE added to ongoing statin therapy was well tolerated and was an effective treatment option for improving lipid profiles and attainment of LDL-C goals. Adding EZE improved rates of attainment of NCEP ATP III LDL-C goals without increases in the dose or potency of statin therapy. Further studies are necessary to determine whether these results can be generalized to other older and elderly populations.

Use of adjectives in abstracts when reporting results of randomized, controlled trials from industry and academia.

OBJECTIVE: Accurate representation of study findings is crucial to preserve public trust. The language used to describe results could affect perceptions of the efficacy or safety of interventions. We sought to compare the adjectives used in clinical trial reports of industry-authored and non-industry-authored research. METHODS: We included studies in PubMed that were randomized trials and had an abstract. Studies were classified as "non-industry-authored" when all authors had academic or governmental affiliations, or as "industry-authored" when any of the authors had industry affiliations. Abstracts were analyzed using a part-of-speech tagger to identify adjectives. To reduce the risk of false positives, the analysis was restricted to adjectives considered relevant to "coloring" (influencing interpretation) of trial results. Differences between groups were determined using exact tests, stratifying by journal. RESULTS: A total of 306,007 publications met the inclusion criteria. We were able to classify 16,789 abstracts; 9,085 were industry-authored research, and 7,704 were non-industry-authored research. We found a differential use of adjectives between industry-authored and non-industry-authored reports. Adjectives such as "well tolerated" and "meaningful" were more commonly used in the title or conclusion of the abstract by industry authors, while adjectives such as "feasible" were more commonly used by non-industry authors. CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the adjectives used when study findings are described in industry-authored reports compared with non-industry-authored reports. Authors should avoid overusing adjectives that could be inaccurate or result in misperceptions. Editors and peer reviewers should be attentive to the use of adjectives and assess whether the usage is context appropriate.

Human positron emission tomography studies of brain neurokinin 1 receptor occupancy by aprepitant.

BACKGROUND: Aprepitant is a highly selective substance P (neurokinin 1 [NK(1)] receptor) antagonist that significantly improves the pharmacotherapy of acute and delayed highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, probably through an action in the brain stem region of the central nervous system. Here, we report the use of positron emission tomography imaging with the NK(1) receptor binding-selective tracer [(18)F]SPA-RQC to determine the levels of central NK(1) receptor occupancy achieved by therapeutically relevant doses of aprepitant in healthy humans. METHODS: Two single-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies in healthy subjects were performed. The first study evaluated the plasma concentration-occupancy relationships for aprepitant dosed orally at 10, 30, 100, or 300 mg, or placebo (n = 12). The second study similarly evaluated oral aprepitant 30 mg and placebo (n = 4). In each study, dosing was once daily for 14 consecutive days. Data from both studies were combined for analyses. The ratio of striatal/cerebellar [(18)F]SPA-RQ (high receptor density region/reference region lacking receptors) was used to calculate trough receptor occupancy 24 hours after the last dose of aprepitant. RESULTS: Brain NK(1) receptor occupancy increased after oral aprepitant dosing in both a plasma concentration-related (r =.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] =.94-1.00, p <.001) and a dose-related (r =.94; 95% CI =.86-1.00, p <.001) fashion. High (> or =90%) receptor occupancy was achieved at doses of 100 mg/day or greater. The plasma concentrations of aprepitant that achieved 50% and 90% occupancy were estimated as approximately 10 ng/mL and approximately 100 ng/mL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Positron emission tomography imaging with [(18)F]SPA-RQ allows brain NK(1) receptor occupancy by aprepitant to be predicted from plasma drug concentrations and can be used to guide dose selection for clinical trials of NK(1) receptor antagonists in central therapeutic indications.

Pain management in osteoarthritis: a focus on onset of efficacy--a comparison of rofecoxib, celecoxib, acetaminophen, and nabumetone across four clinical trials.

UNLABELLED: We compared onset of efficacy (during days 1 to 6) of 2 coxibs (rofecoxib, celecoxib) with acetaminophen and nabumetone by using a prespecified approach to data from 4 similarly designed 6-week randomized osteoarthritis trials. In 2 trials, rofecoxib (12.5 mg and 25 mg once daily) was compared with celecoxib (200 mg once daily) and acetaminophen (4000 mg daily). In the other 2 trials, rofecoxib (12.5 mg) was compared with nabumetone (1000 mg once daily) and placebo. Efficacy end points included Patient Global Response to Therapy and Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index scores. Rofecoxib (12.5- and 25-mg doses) consistently demonstrated a faster onset of osteoarthritis (OA) efficacy than the comparator drugs during the first 6 days of therapy of OA patients experiencing "flare." Acetaminophen resulted in the slowest onset of efficacy. There was a strong correlation (0.7) between efficacy response during days 1 to 6 and that averaged over 6 weeks. Rates of discontinuation as a result of lack of efficacy were significantly lower (P < .02) for each of the coxib-treated groups compared with acetaminophen and for rofecoxib 12.5 mg (P = .01) compared with nabumetone. Rofecoxib treatment, with its faster onset of OA efficacy and lower rates of related discontinuations, might provide efficacy advantages in the treatment of OA pain. PERSPECTIVE: The efficacy of rofecoxib, celecoxib, nabumetone, and acetaminophen is established for the majority of OA patients within the first 6 days of therapy, and this predicts efficacy during the longer term. Rofecoxib provides significantly faster time to onset of efficacy and better improvement on multiple measures versus the comparators.

Effectiveness of simvastatin therapy in raising HDL-C in patients with type 2 diabetes and low HDL-C.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of high and moderate doses of simvastatin (80 and 40 mg), for raising high density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), improving HDL sub-fractions, and affecting other parameters, including high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and low HDL-C. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, 3-period, complete block, 6-week crossover study examined the efficacy of simvastatin in adult men and women (N = 151) with stable type 2 DM (HbA(1C) < 9%), low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) > 100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L), HDL-C < 40 mg/dL (< 1 mmol/L), and fasting triglyceride level > 150 (> 1.7 mmol/L) and < 700 mg/dL (< 7.9 mmol/L). This study included adult men (71%) and women (29%) of various races (89% white, 6% black, 1% Asian, 3% other) enrolled from 29 practice-based sites in the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage change in HDL-C from baseline at the end of each 6-week treatment interval. RESULTS: Both simvastatin 80 and 40 mg significantly increased total HDL-C from baseline (mean increases of 8% +/- 1 [SE] and 5% +/- 1, respectively; p < 0.001) compared with placebo, and significantly reduced plasma concentrations of LDL-C (p < 0.001), triglycerides (p < 0.001), apolipoprotein B (p < 0.001), and hs-CRP (p < or = 0.012). Compared with simvastatin 40 mg, the 80 mg dose provided additional efficacy. Simvastatin 80 mg also significantly (p < 0.001) increased HDL(2) from baseline (14% +/- 3[SE]) and placebo phases (10 +/- 3). An exploratory analysis showed 87% (simvastatin 80 mg) and 82% (simvastatin 40 mg) of patients reached the NCEP ATP III treatment goals for LDL-C compared with 14% on placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Both simvastatin 80 and 40 mg raise HDL-C and improve other measures associated with elevated coronary risk in patients with type 2 DM and low HDL-C.

Paliperidone extended-release: a review of efficacy and tolerability in schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and bipolar mania.

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD: Paliperidone extended-release (ER), a once-daily, oral, atypical antipsychotic, has been available in the USA and the EU for the treatment of schizophrenia for more than 2 years and was recently (July 2009) approved in the USA for treatment of schizoaffective disorder. Additional data on its efficacy and safety, including that for additional indications, is emerging. AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW: This review provides a background on the compound and summarizes recent data available on treatment of schizophrenia, including comparative data with other antipsychotics, and efficacy and safety data from clinical trials in schizoaffective and bipolar disorders. WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN: The reader will gain knowledge of the compound and the existing clinical data so far for paliperidone ER. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Paliperidone ER is effective for the treatment of schizophrenia and is at present the only antipsychotic approved in the USA for treatment of schizoaffective disorder. Its efficacy and tolerability profile in treating patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder indicates that paliperidone ER offers an important treatment option among atypical antipsychotic therapy for these patients.

Topiramate for migraine prevention in adolescents: a pooled analysis of efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the efficacy and safety of topiramate for migraine prevention in adolescents from 3 randomized, 26-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. BACKGROUND: Limited information is available regarding the efficacy and safety of prophylactic medications for treatment of adolescent migraine, a significant health problem. In studies that included adults and children, topiramate 100 and 200 mg/day were effective and generally well-tolerated in the prevention of migraine headache. METHODS: We performed a post hoc subset analysis of the efficacy and safety data from the 51 patients, ages 12-17 years, enrolled in 3 pivotal trials of topiramate for migraine prophylaxis. RESULTS: Daily treatment with topiramate 50, 100, and 200 mg for 26 weeks reduced monthly migraine frequency from baseline 46% (P= .07), 63% (P= .02), and 65% (P= .04), respectively, compared with placebo (16%). Similarly, topiramate reduced both the monthly mean number of migraine days (1, 4, and 5 days for topiramate 50, 100, and 200 mg/day, respectively, vs 1 day for placebo) and percentage of days during which acute migraine medications were administered (59%, 54%, and 67% for topiramate 50, 100, and 200 mg/day, respectively, vs 42% for placebo), although the treatment differences did not reach nominal statistical significance. Topiramate 200 mg/day did not appear to offer greater efficacy than 100 mg/day. Treatment was generally well-tolerated, although adverse events were most frequent in the 200 mg/day dose group. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc subset analysis suggests that topiramate 100 and 200 mg/day, and possibly 50 mg/day, administered prophylactically for 26 weeks may reduce migraine in adolescents.

Dyslipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. relationships between lipids, kidney disease and cardiovascular disease.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most prevalent complication and primarily accounts for the excess morbidity and mortality in diabetic patients, but microvascular complications, such as kidney disease and retinopathy, are frequent and contribute to the total disease burden. Lipid abnormalities in patients with type 2 diabetes are a major problem and associated with the increased risk of CVD. The most common pattern of dyslipidemia in these patients consists of elevated levels of triglycerides and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Low-density lipoprotein levels in these patients are often similar to that of the nondiabetic population, although there may be important qualitative differences in the pattern that contribute to the increased risk of CVD. Abnormal levels of urinary albumin occur in 30-40% of patients with type 2 diabetes and the presence of kidney disease enhances the mortality from CVD. Microalbuminuria, an early marker of diabetic nephropathy, is an independent risk factor for CVD. The increased levels of urinary albumin secretion may represent a more generalized vascular damage than renal microvascular injury alone. This Review focuses on the significance of diabetic dyslipidemia and microalbuminuria to CVD risk as well as to kidney complications. We also discuss the role of aggressive therapy to ameliorate vascular injury in the diabetic patient and reduce or prevent the cardiovascular and renal consequences of the disease.