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.

Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteremia: clinical and microbiological epidemiology in a health area of Southern Spain

Streptococcus pneumoniae remains an important cause of bacteremia worldwide. Last years, a decrease of S. pneumoniae penicillin-resistant isolates has been observed. The objective of this study was to describe the episodes of bacteremia due to S. pneumoniae during a period of 11 years. Epidemiological and clinical data, serotypes causing bacteremia, antibiotic susceptibility and prognosis factors were studied. Over a period of 11 years, all the episodes of S. pneumoniae bacteremia were analysed. Their clinical and microbiological features were recorded. Statistical analysis was carried out to determine risk factors for pneumococcal bacteremia and predictors of fatal outcome. Finally, 67 S. pneumoniae bacteremia episodes were included in this study. The majority of cases were produced in white men in the middle age of their life. The main predisposing factors observed were smoking, antimicrobial and/or corticosteroids administration, chronic pulmonary obstructive disease and HIV infection, and the most common source of bacteremia was the low respiratory tract. The main serotypes found were 19A, 1, 14 and 7F. Seventy-seven percent of these isolates were penicillin-susceptible, and the mortality in this serie was really low. Statistical significance was observed between age, sex and race factors and the presence of bacteremia, and there was relationship between the patient’s condition and the outcome. In our study, S. pneumoniae bacteremia is mainly from community-acquired origin mainly caused in men in the median age of the life. 40% of bacteremias were caused by serotypes 19A, 1, 7F and 14. During the period of study the incidence of bacteremia was stable and the mortality rate was very low.