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.

Five-step authorship framework to improve transparency in disclosing contributors to industry-sponsored clinical trial publications.

Authorship guidelines have established criteria to guide author selection based on significance of contribution and helped to define associated responsibilities and accountabilities for the published findings. However, low awareness, variable interpretation, and inconsistent application of these guidelines can lead to confusion and a lack of transparency when recognizing those who merit authorship. This article describes a research project led by the Medical Publishing Insights and Practices (MPIP) Initiative to identify current challenges when determining authorship for industry-sponsored clinical trials and develop an improved approach to facilitate decision-making when recognizing authors from related publications. A total of 498 clinical investigators, journal editors, publication professionals and medical writers were surveyed to understand better how they would adjudicate challenging, real-world authorship case scenarios, determine the perceived frequency of each scenario and rate their confidence in the responses provided. Multiple rounds of discussions about these results with journal editors, clinical investigators and industry representatives led to the development of key recommendations intended to enhance transparency when determining authorship. These included forming a representative group to establish authorship criteria early in a trial, having all trial contributors agree to these criteria and documenting trial contributions to objectively determine who warrants an invitation to participate in the manuscript development process. The resulting Five-step Authorship Framework is designed to create a more standardized approach when determining authorship for clinical trial publications. Overall, these recommendations aim to facilitate more transparent authorship decisions and help readers better assess the credibility of results and perspectives of the authors for medical research more broadly. Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/214.

Transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical trial publications: a survey of journal editors.

Objective: To examine how medical journal editors perceive changes in transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical trial publications over a 5 year period (2010 to 2015). Methods: From July to September 2015, a survey link was emailed to journal editors identified from the Thomson Reuters registry. Editors ranked their perception of: a) change in transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical trial publications; b) 8 "Publication Best Practices" and the impact of each on transparency; and c) the importance and adoption of the previously published "10 Recommendations for Closing the Credibility Gap in Reporting Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research". Results: Of 510 editors who opened the survey, the analysis pool comprised a total of 293 editors. The majority of respondents reported their location as the US (46%) or EU (45%) and most commonly reported editorial titles were deputy/assistant editor (36%), editor-in-chief (35%) and section editor (24%). More editors reported improved versus worsened transparency (63.5% vs. 6.1%) and credibility (53.2% vs. 10.4%). Best practices that contributed most to improved transparency were "disclosure of the study sponsor" and "registration and posting of trial results". Respondents ranked the importance of nine recommendations as moderate or extremely important, and adoption of all recommendations was ranked minimal to moderate. Conclusions: The 293 editors who responded perceived an improvement in the transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored publications from 2010 to 2015. Confirmation of the importance of 9/10 recommendations by the respondents was encouraging. Yet, low adoption rates suggest that additional work is required by all stakeholders to improve best practices, transparency and credibility.

Cross-sectional study of Pfizer-sponsored clinical trials: assessment of time to publication and publication history.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of Pfizer-sponsored clinical trials that completed in 2010 and are published as manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature, and to assess the manuscript development history. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov that completed in 2010 for approved, Pfizer prescription products in patients or vaccines in healthy participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of studies for which the primary outcome(s) was published and the median time from study completion to publication. The manuscript development history included the number of times a manuscript was submitted before it was accepted for publication. RESULTS: Among registered clinical trials for which Pfizer was the sponsor that completed in 2010, 76 met all inclusion criteria. The primary outcome(s) for 65 (85%) studies was published in 71 manuscripts; the median time to publication was 31 months (range 3-63 months). Of the remaining 11 studies, 2 had been submitted to at least one journal, 2 had not yet been submitted and 7 had no plans to publish because the study had terminated early due to recruitment challenges. Manuscripts accepted at the first choice journal were published at median time of 28 months (range 8-63, n=31), those accepted at second choice journal were published at 32 months (3-45, n=19), and for those accepted at third choice journal, it was 40 months (range 24-53, n=13). CONCLUSIONS: The publication rate and median time to publication from study completion for Pfizer-sponsored studies were comparable to those previously reported for combined analyses of industry and non-industry sectors. Opportunities exist for sponsors, authors and journals to explore ideas that would facilitate more timely publication for clinical trial results. However, to be effective, such changes may need to revisit the entire publication process.

Antioxidant vitamin supplementation reduces benzo(a)pyrene-DNA adducts and potential cancer risk in female smokers.

BACKGROUND: Elevated benzo(a)pyrene [B(a)P]-DNA adducts have been associated with 3-fold increased risk of lung cancer in current smokers. We assessed the chemopreventive effects of antioxidant supplementation using B(a)P-DNA adducts in leukocytes as an intermediate cancer risk marker. METHODS: Subjects were randomized to a double-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial of antioxidant vitamin supplementation [500 mg vitamin C and 400 IU vitamin E (dl-alpha-tocopherol) daily] or placebo. Smokers with > or =10 cigarettes per day and serum cotinine > or =25 ng/mL were eligible for the study. B(a)P-DNA adduct level was the outcome. The randomization was stratified by gender and cigarettes per day (< or =20 or >20). Smoking habits and blood samples were collected every 3 months during the 15-month treatment period. Samples were analyzed for B(a)P-DNA adducts (high-performance liquid chromatography), plasma cotinine, vitamin levels, and GSTM1 genotype. The intent-to-treat model adjusted for B(a)P-DNA and cotinine at randomization. RESULTS: Overall and among men, there was no effect of treatment on B(a)P-DNA adduct levels. Among treated women, B(a)P-DNA adducts decreased by 31% compared with women on placebo (P = 0.03). Among treated women with the GSTM1 genotype, there was a 43% decrease in adducts (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Our primary hypothesis that the mean level of smoking-related B(a)P-DNA adducts would be lower in all subjects in the vitamin treatment group compared with all placebo-treated subjects was not substantiated. However, oursecondary gender-specific analysis found a significant reduction in B(a)P-DNA adducts in women with vitamin treatment, suggesting that antioxidant supplementation maymitigate some of the procarcinogenic effects of exposuretoB(a)P. The effect in GSTM1-null women suggeststhat certain subgroups may derive more benefit fromsupplementation. Although the results of this trial showthe potential chemopreventive role of antioxidants, thebest way for smokers to reduce their cancer risk remains smoking cessation.

Authors' Submission Toolkit: a practical guide to getting your research published.

Biomedical journals and the pharmaceutical industry share the goals of enhancing transparency and expanding access to peer-reviewed research; both industries have recently instituted new policies and guidelines to effect this change. However, while increasing transparency may elevate standards and bring benefits to readers, it will drive a significant increase in manuscript volume, posing challenges to both the journals and industry sponsors. As a result, there is a need to: (1) increase efficiency in the submission process to accommodate the rising manuscript volume and reduce the resource demands on journals, peer reviewers, and authors; and (2) identify suitable venues to publish this research. These shared goals can only be accomplished through close collaboration among stakeholders in the process.In an effort to foster mutual collaboration, members of the pharmaceutical industry and the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals founded a unique collaborative venture in 2008 - the Medical Publishing Insights and Practices initiative (MPIP). At an MPIP roundtable meeting in September 2009,journal editors, publishers and industry representatives identified and prioritized opportunities to streamline the submission process and requirements, and to support prompt publication and dissemination of clinical trial results in the face of increasing manuscript volume. Journal and sponsor participants agreed that more author education on manuscript preparation and submission was needed to increase efficiency and enhance quality and transparency in the publication of industry-sponsored research. They suggested an authors'guide to help bridge the gap between author practices and editor expectations.To address this unmet educational need, MPIP supported development of an Authors' Submission Toolkit to compile best practices in the preparation and submission of manuscripts describing sponsored research.The Toolkit represents a unique collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry and biomedical journals,and reflects both groups' perspectives on how authors can help raise standards and increase efficiency in publishing industry-sponsored studies. The information provided in the toolkit can be useful to help authors navigate the manuscript

Associations between carcinogen-DNA damage, glutathione S-transferase genotypes, and risk of lung cancer in the prospective Physicians' Health Cohort Study.

DNA damage from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and other aromatic/hydrophobic compounds has been implicated in case-control studies as a risk factor for lung cancer, as have common polymorphisms in the glutathione S-transferase (GST) genes involved in carcinogen detoxification. However, their joint effects have not been evaluated in prospective studies, leaving open questions about predictive value of these biomarkers. In this matched case-control study nested within the prospective Physicians' Health Study, we evaluated whether biomarkers measured in white blood cells (WBC) significantly predicted risk, alone and in combination, after controlling for level of smoking. The biomarkers reported here are aromatic/hydrophobic-DNA adducts and polymorphisms in genes coding for the GSTM1 and GSTP1 enzymes. Our study population was composed of 89 cases of primary lung cancer and 173 controls, matched in a 1:2 ratio on smoking, age and duration of follow up. Adducts were measured in WBC DNA by the nuclease P1-enhanced (32)P-post-labeling method. Genotypes (GSTM1 null versus non-null and GSTP1 Val versus GSTP1 Ile) were determined by genomic amplification and restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis. Among current smokers, adducts were significant predictors of lung cancer risk (after adjusting for GST genotypes, OR = 3.10, 95% CI 1.07, 9.01). The combined GSTM1 null/GSTP1 Val genotype was associated with lung cancer overall and especially among former smokers, before and after adjusting for adducts (OR for former smokers = 4.21, CI 1.08, 16.41; adjusted OR = 4.68, CI 1.17, 18.71). Among cases only, adducts were significantly higher among current or former smokers with the GSTM1 non-null/GSTP1 Ile genotype. The two risk factors (adducts and genotypes) appear to be independent predictors of risk. The findings underscore the complex and important role of biological susceptibility as a determinant of risk from carcinogens found in tobacco smoke and other environmental compounds.