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.

Atypical Vascular Involvement in a Case of Behçet's Disease.

Introduction. Behçet's disease (BD) is a form of vasculitis of unknown etiology which is rare in our environment. It is characterized by a variety of clinical manifestations and usually affects young adults. Recurrent oral and genital ulcers are a characteristic and extremely frequent symptom, but mortality is linked with more significant symptoms such as aortic pseudoaneurysm, pulmonary pseudoaneurysm, and cerebral venous thrombosis. Patient and Method. We present a case of a young male with atypical BD and severe polyvascular involvement (previous cerebral venous thrombosis and current peripheral venous thrombosis, acute ischemia, and peripheral arterial pseudoaneurysm) who required urgent surgical intervention due to a symptomatic external iliac pseudoaneurysm. Result. The pseudoaneurysm was successfully treated, we performed an iliofemoral bypass, and we treated it with steroids and immunosuppressive therapy. Conclusions. These rare clinical manifestations highlight the importance of considering BD in young patients, even in usual cases of vascular intervention, whether arterial or venous in nature.

A man with unilateral endophthalmitis: a case of disseminated nocardiosis.

We present the case of a patient with an infection by Nocardia which manifested itself with monocular endophthalmitis. Nocardia infection is not common and ocular involvement is one of the most uncommon presentations. In these cases it is very important to make an early diagnosis and intensive treatment to prevent the visual prognosis.