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.

Long-term assessment of didanosine, lamivudine, and efavirenz in antiretroviral-naive patients: 3-year follow-up.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of didadosine (ddI), lamivudine (3TC), and efavirenz (EFV). This was a follow-up to the VESD study, a 12-month open-label, observational, multicenter study of adult patients with HIV infection who started antiretroviral treatment with the ddI-3TC-EFV once-daily regimen. Of the 167 patients originally included, 106 patients remained on the same triple therapy at the end of the study (1 year), and they were offered an extra 24 months of follow-up; 96 were enrolled in this study (VESD-2). Seventy patients out of the initial cohort were still on the same regimen at month 36, with 97% of them with plasma viral load <50 copies /ml. An intention-to-treat analysis showed that the percentage of patients with plasma viral load <50 copies/ml was 73% at 36 months. CD4 cell counts increased 344 cells/microl over the 36 months. Safety and tolerance were good with no unexpected long-term toxicity. After 3 years of treatment with ddI-3TC-EFV, more than 40% of the patients were still receiving the initial antiretroviral therapy with sustained, durable immunovirological benefit and good acceptance. Long-term toxicity and virological failure were low.