Good Publication Practice (GPP) Guidelines for Company-Sponsored Biomedical Research: 2022 Update.

These updated Good Publication Practice (GPP) guidelines include recommendations for publishing company-sponsored biomedical research. The GPP guidelines apply to peer-reviewed or peer-oriented biomedical publications, such as manuscripts, meeting presentations, posters, and abstracts, as well as enhanced content, such as plain-language summaries. The current GPP guidelines incorporate guidance on ethics and transparency as well as the planning, development, review, and approval of biomedical publications and policies and procedures that describe these practices. Supplemental materials lay out processes for steering committees, publication plans, publication working groups, determining authorship, and documentation. Information about new topics, such as alliances and working with patients, has been included where appropriate within these supplemental materials. Incorporating the principles and best practices presented in these GPP guidelines will result in increased transparency and a firm ethical footing. This guidance is also intended to enable the compliant incorporation of new and emerging publication tools for the ethical publication of company-sponsored research.

Mapping author taxonomies and author criteria: good practices for thinking through complex authorship situations.

Authorship criteria can be difficult to apply in complex situations, such as multicenter clinical trials, multidisciplinary research, or manuscripts reporting the results of several studies. Authors may need additional guidance to appropriately credit their colleagues even when using existing accepted author criteria and/or contributor taxonomies to guide their decisions. Definitions and explanations of authorship by various editorial groups such as International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the World Association of Medical Editors, and the Council of Science Editors emphasize intellectual input and accountability. Existing contributor taxonomies list additional activities that should be credited, but do not stand in for authorship criteria or confer authorship. The literature was searched for existing guidelines for authors that suggest how to apply accepted authorship criteria to activities listed in contributor taxonomies. No publication was identified that mapped specific authorship criteria to particular contributor taxonomies. Suggestions were developed to assist in differentiating activities that meet author criteria from other contributions outlined in two existing contributor taxonomies.

The teams that conduct and publish medical and scientific research must decide who should be listed as an author on articles and other publications. Even though journal editors provide author guidelines, members of research teams can disagree about how to use them. Certain problems occur when studies are done by large groups of researchers or by experts who do different kinds of research. This paper suggests some ways to use the guidelines from major editorial groups like the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the World Association of Medical Editors, and the Council of Science Editors. The guidelines are compared and explained, and then a specific process is outlined for using these guidelines. Charts were made to show authors how to match possible contributions to some specific author guidelines.

A Descriptive-Multivariate Analysis of Community Knowledge, Confidence, and Trust in COVID-19 Clinical Trials among Healthcare Workers in Uganda.

Background-misinformation and mistrust often undermines community vaccine uptake, yet information in rural communities, especially of developing countries, is scarce. This study aimed to identify major challenges associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine clinical trials among healthcare workers and staff in Uganda. Methods-a rapid exploratory survey was conducted over 5 weeks among 260 respondents (66% male) from healthcare centers across the country using an online questionnaire. Twenty-seven questions assessed knowledge, confidence, and trust scores on COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials from participants in 46 districts in Uganda. Results-we found low levels of knowledge (i.e., confusing COVID-19 with Ebola) with males being more informed than females (OR = 1.5, 95% CI: 0.7-3.0), and mistrust associated with policy decisions to promote herbal treatments in Uganda and the rushed international clinical trials, highlighting challenges for the upcoming Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccinations. Knowledge, confidence and trust scores were higher among the least educated (certificate vs. bachelor degree holders). We also found a high level of skepticism and possible community resistance to DNA recombinant vaccines, such as the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. Preference for herbal treatments (38/260; 14.6%, 95% CI: 10.7-19.3) currently being promoted by the Ugandan government raises major policy concerns. High fear and mistrust for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials was more common among wealthier participants and more affluent regions of the country. Conclusion-our study found that knowledge, confidence, and trust in COVID-19 vaccines was low among healthcare workers in Uganda, especially those with higher wealth and educational status. There is a need to increase transparency and inclusive participation to address these issues before new trials of COVID-19 vaccines are initiated.

Dental Care in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review.

Given the dynamic relationship between oral and general health, dental care must not be neglected even during a public health emergency. Nevertheless, the fear of contracting the infection appears to have caused instances of dental treatment avoidance. In these times of uncertainty, regulatory and public health organizations have made numerous and sometimes controversial recommendations to practitioners and to the public about how to secure their oral health care needs. Dentists, as advocates of oral health, should actively maintain their practices while considering local epidemiological reports and recommendations regarding prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Providing appropriate safety measures, accurate triage and prioritization of patients, notice to susceptible communities, remote health care delivery when appropriate, and epidemiological reports of COVID-19 (whenever possible) are all critical considerations for dental practitioners.

Disclosures and Conflicts of Interest: Solving the Riddle, Wrapped in a Mystery, Inside an Enigma.

PURPOSE: Confusion exists around the nature and best practices for authors in biomedical fields seeking to disclose conflicts of interest (COIs) and other information that can produce bias. Guidelines often provide principles for action and to avoid granularity that can limit their general usefulness. Journal editors must also interpret various guidelines to produce and enhance their own disclosure and COI policies. We discussion COIs and present heuristics that can enhance disclosure practices by individual authors and inform policy and practice among medical journal editors. METHODS: The authors reviewed the biomedical literature and drew on professional and academic experience to develop examples and a suggested matrix for decision making. FINDINGS: Most COI commentary centers on financial relationships. Disagreement still exists about the nature and impact of various forms of COI, making critical reasoning essential when making and interpreting disclosures. Journal editors, authors, critics, and other experts express varying opinions about best practices regarding COIs. Policy decisions should be balanced and reasonable. Narrative context may help readers understand the meaning and relevance of disclosures and COIs. IMPLICATIONS: A balance of personal responsibility and critical thinking can enhance disclosure practices as well as confidence in the medical literature. Using a heuristic to think through possible areas of conflict can help authors provide more complete disclosure information. Providing narrative context can ease the burden of peer reviewers, editors, and readers trying to understand disclosures.

Ghostwriting in biomedicine: a review of the published literature.

Introduction: The systematic review of biomedical ghostwriting has proven challenging due to problems in consistency and in study design. Moreover, authorship guidelines established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) may have inadvertently created opportunities to potentiate ghostwriting. Given continued interest in ghostwriting by the International Society of Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) and other organizations, we undertook an analysis of ghostwriting in the biomedical literature.Methods: We searched PubMed (search terms: ghost writ*, ghostwrit*, ghost writer, ghostwriter, ghostwriting and ghost writing). Results, including abstracts, were reviewed for relevance (relationship to ghostwriting in biomedical journals) to aid in removal of inapplicable work and duplicate publications. After review, we consolidated expert opinions for publication professionals.Results: Overlap was poor across search terms; of 181 unique papers identified, most (112/181) were opinion pieces. An increasing number of papers are using the term "ghostwriting" to describe genetics as well as diverse phenomena of misattributed authorship, including "ghost authorship". Eight primary studies and 1 systematic review of ghostwriting incidence were identified, reporting prevalence ranging from <1% to 91%, in varied settings using differing methods and definitions of ghostwriting. Suggestions for avoiding ghostwriting include early consensus building and better definitions of authorship among manuscript teams.Discussion: The prevalence and definition of ghostwriting remain unclear. Increased transparency and auditable authorship practices that align with specific guidelines may aid in the avoidance of ghostwriting. In addition, MeSH or clearer indexing terms may be helpful to separate usages of ghostwriting in scientific settings (e.g. genetic research) versus biomedical publishing.

What is safety?: Miracles, benefit-risk assessments, and the "right to try".

Public discourse is full of quick solutions to health care problems like cancer and rare diseases. Among these is Right to Try legislation for experimental therapies. Right to Try legislation is based on the premise that all experimental agents in clinical trials are safe and guaranteed to produce miracles. Unfortunately, this notion is at odds with expert understanding, which indicates that the benefits and risks of drug products can only be understood together and evaluated incrementally and over time. The current manuscript examines why benefit to risk considerations, a lynchpin of the ethical conduct of clinical research since the Nuremberg Code, might be easily elided from public discourse. This paper considers guidelines for regulatory writing, which routinely separate discussions of effectiveness and safety, as a possible source for some confusion. The internationally-accepted ICH M4E (Common Technical Document) guideline published in 2016 now provides additional guidance for composing Benefits and Risks Conclusions, which weigh and consider effectiveness and safety together. Yet fundamental differences in understanding the "safety" of medicinal products continue to exist between experts in biomedicine, politicians, and healthcare activists. Examining differences in the understanding of "safety" between experts and non-experts also may help explain the source for flawed logic about the safety of investigational products in Right To Try narratives. No drug product is 100% safe. Continuing to weigh benefits and risks together is an important intellectual practice necessary to safeguard human health worldwide, and testing clinical safety is the only way to provide meaningful protections to patients. Science, not miracles, can ensure the protection of patients in clinical research as well as clinical practice. Weighing benefits and risks is an essential intellectual act that informs public health. Science, not miracles, can guide this work.

Interlaboratory standardization of the sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay designed for MATS, a rapid, reproducible method for estimating the strain coverage of investigational vaccines.

The meningococcal antigen typing system (MATS) sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was designed to measure the immunologic cross-reactivity and quantity of antigens in target strains of a pathogen. It was first used to measure the factor H-binding protein (fHbp), neisserial adhesin A (NadA), and neisserial heparin-binding antigen (NHBA) content of serogroup B meningococcal (MenB) isolates relative to a reference strain, or "relative potency" (RP). With the PorA genotype, the RPs were then used to assess strain coverage by 4CMenB, a multicomponent MenB vaccine. In preliminary studies, MATS accurately predicted killing in the serum bactericidal assay using human complement, an accepted correlate of protection for meningococcal vaccines. A study across seven laboratories assessed the reproducibility of RPs for fHbp, NadA, and NHBA and established qualification parameters for new laboratories. RPs were determined in replicate for 17 MenB reference strains at laboratories A to G. The reproducibility of RPs among laboratories and against consensus values across laboratories was evaluated using a mixed-model analysis of variance. Interlaboratory agreement was very good; the Pearson correlation coefficients, coefficients of accuracy, and concordance correlation coefficients exceeded 99%. The summary measures of reproducibility, expressed as between-laboratory coefficients of variation, were 7.85% (fHbp), 16.51% (NadA), and 12.60% (NHBA). The overall within-laboratory measures of variation adjusted for strain and laboratory were 19.8% (fHbp), 28.8% (NHBA), and 38.3% (NadA). The MATS ELISA was successfully transferred to six laboratories, and a further laboratory was successfully qualified.

Critical appraisal of a quadrivalent CRM(197) conjugate vaccine against meningococcal serogroups A, C W-135 and Y (Menveo) in the context of treatment and prevention of invasive disease.

Worldwide, invasive meningococcal disease affects about 500,000 people annually. Case fatality in developed countries averages 10%, and higher rates are reported in less prosperous regions. According to the World Health Organization, the most important pathogenic serogroups are A, B, C, W-135, X, and Y. Clinical features of invasive meningococcal disease make diagnosis and management difficult. Antibiotic measures are recommended for prophylaxis after exposure and for treatment of invasive meningococcal disease cases; however, resistant strains may be emerging. Vaccines are generally regarded as the best preventative measure for invasive meningococcal disease. Polysaccharide vaccines against serogroups A, C, W-135, and Y using protein conjugation technology have clear advantages over older plain polysaccharide formulations without a protein component. The first quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY-D) was licensed in the US in 2005. More recently, MenACWY-CRM (Menveo(®)) was licensed in Europe, the US, the Middle East, and Latin America. MenACWY-CRM uses cross-reactive material 197, a nontoxic mutant of diphtheria toxin, as the carrier protein. MenACWY-CRM offers robust immunogenicity in all age groups, with a tolerability profile similar to that of a plain polysaccharide vaccine. Given its potential for protecting persons from infancy to old age, MenACWY-CRM offers the opportunity to protect broad populations against invasive meningococcal disease. The most optimal strategy for use of the vaccine has to be assessed country by country on the basis of local epidemiology, individual health care systems, and need.

Statistical evaluations of the reproducibility and reliability of 3-tesla high resolution magnetization transfer brain images: a pilot study on healthy subjects.

Magnetization transfer imaging (MT) may have considerable promise for early detection and monitoring of subtle brain changes before they are apparent on conventional magnetic resonance images. At 3 Tesla (T), MT affords higher resolution and increased tissue contrast associated with macromolecules. The reliability and reproducibility of a new high-resolution MT strategy were assessed in brain images acquired from 9 healthy subjects. Repeated measures were taken for 12 brain regions of interest (ROIs): genu, splenium, and the left and right hemispheres of the hippocampus, caudate, putamen, thalamus, and cerebral white matter. Spearman's correlation coefficient, coefficient of variation, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were computed. Multivariate mixed-effects regression models were used to fit the mean ROI values and to test the significance of the effects due to region, subject, observer, time, and manual repetition. A sensitivity analysis of various model specifications and the corresponding ICCs was conducted. Our statistical methods may be generalized to many similar evaluative studies of the reliability and reproducibility of various imaging modalities.

Experience with MCV-4, a meningococcal, diphtheria toxoid conjugate vaccine against serogroups A, C, Y and W-135.

Invasive disease due to Neisseria meningitidis continues to cause debility and death worldwide in otherwise healthy individuals. Disease epidemiology varies globally, but most cases are due to serogroups A, B, C, W-135 or Y. MenactraTM (MCV-4), a quadrivalent, meningococcal diphtheria-conjugate vaccine against serogroups A, C, Y, and W-135, was licensed in the USA for individuals 11-55 years of age. Published results of clinical trials demonstrated robust immune responses that correlate with indicators of protection. MCV-4-induced antibody persist for up to 3 years after administration and anamnestic responses to revaccination. The vaccine was well tolerated; the most common reactions were transient, mild injection-site reactions and headache. MCV-4 should provide significant clinical benefits in the future.

An adolescent and adult formulation combined tetanus, diphtheria and five-component pertussis vaccine.

Pertussis causes substantial morbidity among adolescents and adults, as well as other persons in contact with affected individuals. In the context of widespread childhood immunization, vaccination of adolescents and adults is a relatively new strategy for reducing the disease in all age groups. ADACEL is a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis combination vaccine (incorporating pertussis toxoid, filamentous hemagglutinin, pertactin and fimbriae type 2 and 3 antigens) formulated for use in adolescents and adults based on similar products designed for infants and children. ADACEL vaccine is approved for use in Australia, Canada, Germany and the USA, and has been demonstrated to induce robust immune responses and acceptable levels of reactogenicity in clinical trials. Surveillance data from Canada, where ADACEL vaccine has been used in adolescents and adults in conjunction with ongoing childhood vaccination for several years, indicate an enhanced overall reduction in pertussis disease.

Efficacy and tolerability profile of etoricoxib in patients with osteoarthritis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo and active-comparator controlled 12-week efficacy trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of 12 weeks of treatment with etoricoxib, a selective COX-2 inhibitor, in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee or hip. METHODS: In the 12-week placebo- and active comparator-controlled period of a randomized, double-blind study, eligible patients were treated with etoricoxib 60 mg once daily (n = 224), naproxen 500 mg twice daily (n = 221), or placebo (n = 56). Western Ontario McMaster's Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function subscales and patient's global assessment of disease status were primary end points. Key secondary and other end points were patient's and investigator's global assessment of response to therapy, WOMAC stiffness subscale, investigator's global assessment of disease status, rescue paracetamol use, proportion of patients discontinuing due to lack of efficacy, and study joint tenderness. RESULTS: Etoricoxib 60 mg demonstrated efficacy significantly superior to placebo (p < or = 0.005) and comparable to naproxen 500 mg twice daily as assessed by the primary efficacy end points. Secondary and other end points confirmed these results. Treatment effects were evident by day 2, maximal by week 2, and sustained over the entire 12 weeks. Etoricoxib was well tolerated for 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Etoricoxib showed rapid and durable treatment effects in patients with OA of the knee or hip. Etoricoxib was generally well tolerated.