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.

Infornut® Process; improves accessibility to diagnosis and nutritional support for the malnourished hospitalized patient; impact on management indicators; two-year assessment.

Introduction: The high prevalence of disease-related hospital malnutrition justifies the need for screening tools and early detection in patients at risk for malnutrition, followed by an assessment targeted towards diagnosis and treatment. At the same time there is clear undercoding of malnutrition diagnoses and the procedures to correct it Objectives: To describe the INFORNUT program/ process and its development as an information system. To quantify performance in its different phases. To cite other tools used as a coding source. To calculate the coding rates for malnutrition diagnoses and related procedures. To show the relationship to Mean Stay, Mortality Rate and Urgent Readmission; as well as to quantify its impact on the hospital Complexity Index and its effect on the justification of Hospitalization Costs. Material and methods: The INFORNUT® process is based on an automated screening program of systematic detection and early identification of malnourished patients on hospital admission, as well as their assessment, diagnoses, documentation and reporting. Of total readmissions with stays longer than three days incurred in 2008 and 2010, we recorded patients who underwent analytical screening with an alert for a medium or high risk of malnutrition, as well as the subgroup of patients in whom we were able to administer the complete INFORNUT® process, generating a report for each.

Conocimientos y actitudes de los profesionales sanitarios en el proceso de declaración de las voluntades vitales anticipadas.

Objective: To identify the underlying interests of the Living Will Declaration (LWD) process and to determine the consensus, using a questionnaire, of the knowledge and attitudes of health professionals. Design: A study was performed in two phases using a Delphi technique with a Rand method. 1. Dimensions proposed: generation of ideas and their subsequent prioritizing; 2. Proposal andprioritizing of items grouped into blocks of Knowledge and Attitudes, developed between August 2012 and January 2013.Setting: The work was carried out by initial telephone contact with panellists, and then later by the panellists belonged to the Andalusia Public Health System.Participants: The criteria for selecting the eight components of the panel were knowledge andexperience in the field of the freedom of the patient in Andalusia. Results: The Knowledge identified included: 1 A) Legal and general aspects; 2 A) A conceptual definition; 3 A) Standardised LWD documents: 4 A) Practical experience; 5 A) Procedure and registering of the LWDs. The second block included Attitudes: 1 B) Attitudes of the professional in the application of LWDs in clinical practice, and 2 B) Attitudes of the professional in «complex» ethical scenarios The 7 panellists who finally took part proposed 165 items. After applying the prioritizing criteria, scores, and scenario selection, 58 (35.2%) items were identified as suitable scenarios. Conclusions: The proposed questionnaire included wide parcels of concepts and contents that, once validated, will help to measure the training interventions carried out on health professionals in order to improve knowledge and attitudes on the subject of LWDs.