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.

Monotherapy with darunavir/ritonavir is effective and safe in clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION Monotherapy against HIV has undoubted theoretical advantages and has good scientific fundaments. However, it is still controversial and here we will analyze the efficacy and safety of MT with darunavir with ritonavir (DRV/r) on patients who have received this treatment in our hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS Observational retrospective study that includes patients from 10 Andalusian hospitals that have received DRV/r in MT and that have been followed over a minimum of 12 months. We carried out a statistical descriptive analysis based on the profile of patients who had been prescribed MT and the efficacy and safety that were observed, paying special attention to treatment failure and virological evolution. RESULTS DRV/r was prescribed to 604 patients, of which 41.1% had a CD4 nadir <200/mmc. 33.1% had chronic hepatitis caused by HCV, had received an average of five lines of previous treatment and had a history of treatment failure to analogues in 33%, to non-analogues 22 and protease inhibitors (PI) in 19.5%. 76.6% proceeded from a previous treatment with PI. The simplification was the main criteria for the instauration of MT in the 81.5% and the adverse effects in the 18.5%. We managed to maintain MT in 84% of cases, with only 4.8% of virological failure (VF) with viral load (VL) >200 c/mL and 3.6% additional losses due to VF with VL between 50 and 200 copies/mL. Thirty three genotypes were performed after failure without findings of resistance mutations to DRV/r or other IPs. Only 23.7% of patients presented some blips during the period of exposition to MT. Eighty seven percent of all determinations of VL had <50 copies/mL, and only 4.99% had >200 copies/mL. Although up to 14.9% registered at some point an AE, only 2.6% abandoned MT because of AE and 1.2% because of voluntary decision. Although the average of total and LDL cholesterol increases 10 mg/dL after 2 years of follow-up, so did HDL cholesterol in 3mg/dL and the values of triglycerides (-14 mg/dL) and GPT (-6 UI/mL) decreased. The average count of CD4 lymphocytes increased from 642 to 714/mm(3) at 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS In a very broad series of patients obtained from clinical practice, data from clinical trials was confirmed: MT with DRV as a de-escalation strategy is very safe, it's associated to a negligible rate of adverse effects and maintains a good suppression of HIV replication. VF (with >50 or >200 copies/mL) is always under 10% and in any case without consequences.