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.

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.