Chemical products : basic guide on labelling and safety data sheets

Hazardous chemical products have to comply with, amongst others, the provisions of a correct classification of danger, labelling and compilation of the safety data sheets. The aim is to protect people's health and the environment from exposure to hazardous chemicals- especially the health and safety of direct users, professionals or not, and the general public, via environmental exposure. This publication is intended to contribute to the knowledge of the objectives and basic aspects of these legal provisions, and thereby increase their degree of compliance in Andalusia and other european regions. This Guide is directed toward those people who, in the development of their professional activities, are in one way or another in contact with dangerous chemical products.

Chemical products : basic guide on labelling and safety data sheets

Hazardous chemical products have to comply with, amongst others, the provisions of a correct classification of danger, labelling and compilation of the safety data sheets. The aim is to protect people's health and the environment from exposure to hazardous chemicals- especially the health and safety of direct users, professionals or not, and the general public, via environmental exposure. This publication is intended to contribute to the knowledge of the objectives and basic aspects of these legal provisions, and thereby increase their degree of compliance in Andalusia and other european regions. This Guide is directed toward those people who, in the development of their professional activities, are in one way or another in contact with dangerous chemical products.

Why Public Health Agencies Cannot Depend on Good Laboratory Practices as a Criterion for Selecting Data: The Case of Bisphenol A

In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION: Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS: Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.

An Open-Label, Noncomparative, Multicenter Study to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of NASHA/Dx Gel as a Bulking Agent for the Treatment of Fecal Incontinence

Fecal incontinence (FI) is the involuntary loss of rectal contents through the anal canal. Reports of its prevalence vary from 1-21%. Studies, have demonstrated a positive effect on FI symptoms with injectable bulking agents. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of NASHA/Dx gel in the treatment of FI. One hundred fifteen eligible patients suffering from FI received 4 injections of 1 mL NASHA/Dx gel. Primary efficacy was based on data from 86 patients that completed the study. This study demonstrated a ≥50% reduction from baseline in the number of FI episodes in 57.1% of patients at 6 months, and 64.0% at 12 months. Significant improvements (P < .001) were also noted in total number of both solid and loose FI episodes, FI free days, CCFIS, and FIQL scores in all 4 domains. The majority of the treatment related AEs (94.9%) were mild or moderate intensity, and (98.7%) of AEs resolved spontaneously, or following treatment, without sequelae. Results of this study indicate NASHA/Dx gel was efficacious in the treatment of FI. Treatment effect was significant both in reduction of number of FI episodes and disease specific quality of life at 6 months and lasted up to 12 months after treatment.

Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetic of once-daily boosted saquinavir (1500/100 mg) together with 2 nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in real life: a multicentre prospective study.

BACKGROUND. Ritonavir-boosted saquinavir (SQVr) is nowadays regarded as an alternative antiretroviral drug probably due to several drawbacks, such as its high pill burden, twice daily dosing and the requirement of 200 mg ritonavir when given at the current standard 1000/100 mg bid dosing. Several once-daily SQVr dosing schemes have been studied with the 200 mg SQV old formulations, trying to overcome some of these disadvantages. SQV 500 mg strength tablets became available at the end of 2005, thus facilitating a once-daily regimen with fewer pills, although there is very limited experience with this formulation yet. METHODS. Prospective, multicentre study in which efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of a regimen of once-daily SQVr 1500/100 mg plus 2 NRTIs were evaluated under routine clinical care conditions in either antiretroviral-naïve patients or in those with no previous history of antiretroviral treatments and/or genotypic resistance tests suggesting SQV resistance. Plasma SQV trough levels were measured by HPLV-UV. RESULTS. Five hundred and fourteen caucasian patients were included (47.2% coinfected with hepatitis C and/or B virus; 7.8% with cirrhosis). Efficacy at 52 weeks (plasma RNA-HIV <50 copies/ml) was 67.7% (CI95: 63.6 - 71.7%) by intention-to-treat, and 92.2% (CI95: 89.8 - 94.6%) by on-treatment analysis. The reasons for failure were: dropout or loss to follow-up (18.4%), virological failure (7.8%), adverse events (3.1%), and other reasons (4.6%). The high rate of dropout may be explained by an enrollment and follow-up under routine clinical care condition, and a population with a significant number of drug users. The median SQV Cmin (n = 49) was 295 ng/ml (range, 53-2172). The only variable associated with virological failure in the multivariate analysis was adherence (OR: 3.36; CI95, 1.51-7.46, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS. Our results suggests that SQVr (1500/100 mg) once-daily plus 2 NRTIs is an effective regimen, without severe clinical adverse events or hepatotoxicity, scarce lipid changes, and no interactions with methadone. All these factors and its once-daily administration suggest this regimen as an appropriate option in patients with no SQV resistance-associated mutations.

Trends in qualifying biomarkers in drug safety. Consensus of the 2011 meeting of the spanish society of clinical pharmacology.

In this paper we discuss the consensus view on the use of qualifying biomarkers in drug safety, raised within the frame of the XXIV meeting of the Spanish Society of Clinical Pharmacology held in Málaga (Spain) in October, 2011. The widespread use of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints is a goal that scientists have long been pursuing. Thirty years ago, when molecular pharmacogenomics evolved, we anticipated that these genetic biomarkers would soon obviate the routine use of drug therapies in a way that patients should adapt to the therapy rather than the opposite. This expected revolution in routine clinical practice never took place as quickly nor with the intensity as initially expected. The concerted action of operating multicenter networks holds great promise for future studies to identify biomarkers related to drug toxicity and to provide better insight into the underlying pathogenesis. Today some pharmacogenomic advances are already widely accepted, but pharmacogenomics still needs further development to elaborate more precise algorithms and many barriers to implementing individualized medicine exist. We briefly discuss our view about these barriers and we provide suggestions and areas of focus to advance in the field.

Rationale and design of a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled multicenter trial to study efficacy, security, and long term effects of intermittent repeated levosimendan administration in patients with advanced heart failure: LAICA study.

BACKGROUND Advanced heart failure (HF) is associated with high morbidity and mortality; it represents a major burden for the health system. Episodes of acute decompensation requiring frequent and prolonged hospitalizations account for most HF-related expenditure. Inotropic drugs are frequently used during hospitalization, but rarely in out-patients. The LAICA clinical trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of monthly levosimendan infusion in patients with advanced HF to reduce the incidence of hospital admissions for acute HF decompensation. METHODS The LAICA study is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial. It aims to recruit 213 out-patients, randomized to receive either a 24-h infusion of levosimendan at 0.1 μg/kg/min dose, without a loading dose, every 30 days, or placebo. RESULTS The main objective is to assess the incidence of admission for acute HF worsening during 12 months. Secondarily, the trial will assess the effect of intermittent levosimendan on other variables, including the time in days from randomization to first admission for acute HF worsening, mortality and serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS The LAICA trial results could allow confirmation of the usefulness of intermittent levosimendan infusion in reducing the rate of hospitalization for HF worsening in advanced HF outpatients.

Liver safety assessment: required data elements and best practices for data collection and standardization in clinical trials.

A workshop was convened to discuss best practices for the assessment of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in clinical trials. In a breakout session, workshop attendees discussed necessary data elements and standards for the accurate measurement of DILI risk associated with new therapeutic agents in clinical trials. There was agreement that in order to achieve this goal the systematic acquisition of protocol-specified clinical measures and lab specimens from all study subjects is crucial. In addition, standard DILI terms that address the diverse clinical and pathologic signatures of DILI were considered essential. There was a strong consensus that clinical and lab analyses necessary for the evaluation of cases of acute liver injury should be consistent with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on pre-marketing risk assessment of DILI in clinical trials issued in 2009. A recommendation that liver injury case review and management be guided by clinicians with hepatologic expertise was made. Of note, there was agreement that emerging DILI signals should prompt the systematic collection of candidate pharmacogenomic, proteomic and/or metabonomic biomarkers from all study subjects. The use of emerging standardized clinical terminology, CRFs and graphic tools for data review to enable harmonization across clinical trials was strongly encouraged. Many of the recommendations made in the breakout session are in alignment with those made in the other parallel sessions on methodology to assess clinical liver safety data, causality assessment for suspected DILI, and liver safety assessment in special populations (hepatitis B, C, and oncology trials). Nonetheless, a few outstanding issues remain for future consideration.

Daptomycin plus fosfomycin versus daptomycin monotherapy in treating MRSA: protocol of a multicentre, randomised, phase III trial.

INTRODUCTION Despite the availability of new antibiotics such as daptomycin, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteraemia continues to be associated with high clinical failure rates. Combination therapy has been proposed as an alternative to improve outcomes but there is a lack of clinical studies. The study aims to demonstrate that combination of daptomycin plus fosfomycin achieves higher clinical success rates in the treatment of MRSA bacteraemia than daptomycin alone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS A multicentre open-label, randomised phase III study. Adult patients hospitalised with MRSA bacteraemia will be randomly assigned (1:1) to group 1: daptomycin 10 mg/kg/24 h intravenous; or group 2: daptomycin 10 mg/kg/24 h intravenous plus fosfomycin 2 gr/6 g intravenous. The main outcome will be treatment response at week 6 after stopping therapy (test-of-cure (TOC) visit). This is a composite variable with two values: Treatment success: resolution of clinical signs and symptoms (clinical success) and negative blood cultures (microbiological success) at the TOC visit. Treatment failure: if any of the following conditions apply: (1) lack of clinical improvement at 72 h or more after starting therapy; (2) persistent bacteraemia (positive blood cultures on day 7); (3) therapy is discontinued early due to adverse effects or for some other reason based on clinical judgement; (4) relapse of MRSA bacteraemia before the TOC visit; (5) death for any reason before the TOC visit. Assuming a 60% cure rate with daptomycin and a 20% difference in cure rates between the two groups, 103 patients will be needed for each group (α:0.05, ß: 0.2). Statistical analysis will be based on intention to treat, as well as per protocol and safety analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The protocol was approved by the Spanish Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (AEMPS). The sponsor commits itself to publishing the data in first quartile peer-review journals within 12 months of the completion of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01898338.

Effectiveness of glatiramer acetate compared to other multiple sclerosis therapies.

OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of glatiramer acetate (GA) compared to other multiple sclerosis (MS) therapies in routine clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS Observational cohort study carried out in MS patients treated with GA (GA cohort) or other MS therapies -switched from GA- (non-GA cohort). Study data were obtained through review of our MS patient database. The primary endpoint was the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores reached at the end of treatment/last check-up. RESULTS A total of 180 patients were included: GA cohort n = 120, non-GA cohort n = 60. Patients in the GA cohort showed better EDSS scores at the end of treatment/last check-up (mean ± SD, 2.8 ± 1.8 vs. 3.9 ± 2.2; P = 0.001) and were 1.65 times more likely to show better EDSS scores compared to the non-GA cohort (odds ratio, 0.606; 95%CI, 0.436-0.843; P = 0.003). Patients in the GA cohort showed longer mean time to reach EDSS scores of 6 (209.1 [95%CI, 187.6-230.6] vs. 164.3 [95% CI, 137.0-191.6] months; P = 0.004) and slower disability progression (hazard ratio, 0.415 [95%CI, 0.286-0.603]; P < 0.001). The annualized relapse rate was lower in the GA cohort (mean ± SD, 0.5 ± 0.5 vs. 0.8 ± 0.5; P = 0.001) and patients' quality of life was improved in this study cohort compared to the non-GA cohort (mean ± SD, 0.7 ± 0.1 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS GA may slow down the progression of EDSS scores to a greater extent than other MS therapies, as well as achieving a greater reduction in relapses and a greater improvement in patients' quality of life. Switching from GA to other MS therapies has not proved to entail a better response to treatment.