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.

Gender differences in cardiovascular risk factors in HIV infected patients on antiretroviral therapy: Data from the Spanish Coronator study.

Purpose: HIV-infected patients present an increased cardiovascular risk (CVR) of multifactorial origin, usually lower in women than in men. Information by gender about prevalence of modifiable risk factors is scarce. Methods: Coronator is a cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of HIV-infected patients on ART within 10 hospitals across Spain in 2011. Variables include sociodemographics, CVR factors and 10-year CV disease risk estimation (Regicor: Framingham score adapted to the Spanish population). Results: We included 860 patients (76.3% male) with no history of CVD. Median age 45.6 years; 84.1% were Spaniards; 29.9% women were IDUs. Median time since HIV diagnosis for men and women was 10 and 13 years (p=0.001), 28% had an AIDS diagnosis. Median CD4 cell count was 596 cells/mm3, 88% had undetectable viral load. Median time on ART was 91 and 108 months (p=0.017). There was a family history of early CVD in 113 men (17.9%) and 41 women (20.6%). Classical CVR factors are described in the table. Median (IQR) Regicor Score was 3% (2-5) for men and 2% (1-3) for women (p=0.000), and the proportion of subjects with mid-high risk (>5%) was 26.1% for men and 9.4% for women (p=0.000). Conclusions: In this population of HIV-infected patients, women have lower cardiovascular risk than men, partly due to higher levels of HDL cholesterol. Of note is the high frequency of smoking, abdominal obesity and sedentary lifestyle in our population. (Table Presented).