An audit of US FDA warning letters issued to sponsors, institutional review boards and investigators over a six-year period.

The present audit was carried out with the objective of evaluating warning letters (WLs) issued to trial sponsors, clinical investigators and institutional review boards (IRBs) by the United States Food and Drug Administration during a six-year period and compare it with two similar earlier audits. WLs were reviewed and classified as per stakeholders and further categorised as per predefined violation themes. The chi-square test was performed for trend analysis of WLs. A total of 62 WLs were issued to the three stakeholders. The maximum number of WLs were issued to the clinical investigators (36/62, 58.06%), followed by sponsors (19/62, 30.64%), and least to the IRBs (7/62, 11.29%). Among sponsors, lack of standard operating procedures for the monitoring, receipt, evaluation and reporting of post-marketing adverse drug events was the most common violation theme (8/19, 42.1%). Among clinical investigators, deviation from investigational plan was the most common violation theme (31/36, 86.11%.). For IRBs, inadequate documentation was the most common violation theme (6/7, 85.71%). We saw an overall reduction in the number of WLs issued to the stakeholders. Thus, we identified multiple areas on which each stakeholder should work for improvement.

An analysis of invitations for article submission received via emails

Predatory journals charge publication fees from authors and publish without an adequate peer review, and often do not provide editorial and/or publishing services. Our objective was to evaluate e-mail solicitations received by authors in a defined time period to identify attributes of these solicitations as a metric to identify legitimacy of the journal. All e-mails seeking article submission received between January 1 and September 30, 2019, were evaluated. Each e-mail along with its respective webpage was evaluated for the journal’s and publisher’s names, mention of peer review, any assurance of publication, a mention of article processing charges (APC), composite invites [in the e-mail] and mention of peer review, the presence and functionality of archives, presence of manuscript management tab, mention of APC [on the webpage]. Descriptive statistics were used for the analysis. Of the 135 e-mails screened, 100 were finally included in the analysis. We found that 72% of the journals and/ or publishers were included in Beall’s list. According to our criteria, a total of 85% of the solicitations were from journals that we identified as “presumed predatory”. Our study has identified assurance of publication, rapid turnaround time, ambiguous information in the email and webpage, false claims of indexing as some descriptors which may help young authors and researchers assess a journal’s legitimacy.

A critical analysis of the COMPASS trial with respect to benefit-risk assessment using the numbers needed to treat: Applicability and relevance in Indian patients with stable cardiovascular disease

The recently published Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial evaluated the hypothesis that rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary prevention. In India, stable cardiovascular disease occurs in a much younger age group relative to the rest of the world. Our critical analysis of COMPASS trial showed that the younger age group appeared to derive greater benefit from the rivaroxaban + aspirin combination (relative to aspirin alone) as seen with number needed to treat metrics as compared to the older age group.