Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment (Oct 2017)
Letter to the editor regarding the article “The use of Psychiatric Electroencephalography Evaluations Registry (PEER) to personalize pharmacotherapy”
Abstract
Peter J Weina,1 Sanjur Brooks2 1Department of Research Programs, Infectious Diseases Physician, WRNMMC and FBCH, Medicine and Preventive Medicine, USUHS, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD, USA; 2Department of Research Programs, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD, USA We read the paper of Iosifescu et al, “The use of Psychiatric Electroencephalography Evaluations Registry (PEER) to personalize pharmacotherapy”, with great apprehension. The authors’ description of the study’s limitations was gravely understated. Under the “Study limitations” section, the authors stated “The Walter Reed PEER Trial has certain limitations that should be kept in mind when interpreting the study findings”.1 However, the authors fail to address the study’s regulatory challenges and ethical concerns of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC).Authors' reply Dan V Iosifescu,1,2 Robert J Neborsky,3–5 Robert J Valuck6–81NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 2Clinical Research, Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research Orangeburg, NY, USA; 3School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA; 4University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 5Medical Corps, US Navy, USA; 6Pharmacy, Epidemiology, and Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA; 7Center for Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research, University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA; 8Colorado Consortium for Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention, Denver, CO, USA We welcome the opportunity to respond to the letter from Dr Weina and Mr Brooks regarding our paper “The use of the Psychiatric Electroencephalography Evaluation Register (PEER) to personalize pharmacotherapy”, published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment. We find the description of the events as portrayed in the letter to omit relevant information, and we welcome the opportunity to set the record straight. View the original paper by Iosifescu DV and colleagues.
