Should A Paxil Journal Article Be Retracted? // Pharmalot

[Guest guest]

http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/01/should-a-paxil-journal-article-be-retracted/

â Pharma Blogâ  Â» â 2011â  Â» â Januaryâ  Â» â 24â 

â Should A Paxil Journal Article Be Retracted?â 

1 Comment

By Ed Silverman // â  January 24th, 2011â  // 9:46 am

A decade ago, the â Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatryâ  published a paper concluding the Paxil antidepressant, which is

sold by GlaxoKline, was “generally well tolerated and effective for major

depression in adolescents.†But the study has since been discredited amid

charges that primary and secondary outcomes were conflated, selective results

were reported and ghostwriting was involved (â background hereâ  and

â hereâ ).

The details became known more than two years ago as documents emerged from

investigations (â see thisâ ) and lawsuits charging GlaxoKline hid the

risks of its Paxil pill. By then, the FDA required Glaxo to place a Black Box

warning about suicidality in youngsters and UK regulators recommended the drug

not be given to those under 18 years of age. But by last June, the paper had

been cited in more than 200 other articles, many of which continued to point to

the study as evidence that Paxil is effective in treating adolescent depression,

according to BMJ.

And so two academics - Jon Jureidini, associate professor of psychiatry at the

University of Adelaide, and Leemon McHenry, lecturer in philosophy at California

State University - asked the the journal in December 2009 to retract the paper

because, they argue, it is misleading. “The JACAAP was the most important

instrument through which the results of Study 329 were misrepresented to

physicians,†they tell BMJ. So far, though, their call has gone on unheeded.

The JAACAP editor tells BMJ the paper does not contain any inaccuracies and

negative findings are included in a results table and, as a result, there are no

grounds for withdrawal. The decision to publish the paper “conformed to best

publication practices prevailing at the time,†and he had given “serious

consideration and due diligence†to the request but found no evidence of

scientific errors “nor any justification for retraction according to current

editorial standards and scientific publication guidelines,†BMJ writes (please

see the BMJ piece â hereâ ). For its part, Glaxo continues to maintain it

acted properly and that the paper was submitted before a link to suicidality was

made.

The spat raises questions about if and when a journal article should be

retracted. As BMJ notes, last year, the Committee on Publication Ethics expanded

its own notion and recommended retraction if journals “have clear evidence

that the findings are unreliable.†The point is to “correct the literature

and ensure its integrity†rather than to punish authors (â here are the

guidlinesâ ). And the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors urge

retraction in the event of scientific fraud or if an error is “so serious as

to vitiate the entire body of work (â read hereâ ).

The point, in other words, is to set the record straight. After all, why

continually disseminate mistakes that can have undesirable health outcomes?

Nonetheless, BMJ points out that retractions do not occur very often: in 1990,

five of 690,000 journal articles published were retracted, compared with 95

retractions out of 1.4 million papers published in 2008.

And some question the virtue of continual look backs. As Harvey Marcovitch, a

former chair at the Committee on Publication Ethics tells BMJ: “There are very

many papers where, if you looked at the data, you could argue that the

conclusions are not justified. If you used retraction whenever that happened

you’d be continuously retracting.†Jureidini, however, believes journal

editors “prefer to turn a blind eye,†rather than acknowledge a problem

needs to be addressed. What do you think?

Should The JAACAP Retract The Paxil Article?

Yes (68%, 19 Votes)

No (32%, 9 Votes)

Total Voters: 28

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T