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.

Recommendations of the GARIN group for managing non-critically ill patients with diabetes or stress hyperglycaemia and artificial nutrition.

BACKGROUND & AIMS By means of this update, the GARIN working group aims to define its position regarding the treatment of patients with diabetes or stress hyperglycaemia and artificial nutrition. In this area there are many aspects of uncertainty, especially in non-critically ill patients. METHODS Bibliographical review, and specific questions in advance were discussed and answered at a meeting in the form of conclusions. RESULTS We propose a definition of stress hyperglycaemia. The indications and access routes for artificial nutrition are no different in patients with diabetes/stress hyperglycaemia than in non-diabetics. The objective must be to keep pre-prandial blood glucose levels between 100 and 140 mg/dl and post-prandial levels between 140 and 180 mg/dl. Hyperglycemia can be prevented through systematic monitoring of capillary glycaemias and adequately calculate energy-protein needs. We recommend using enteral formulas designed for patients with diabetes (high monounsaturated fat) to facilitate metabolic control. The best drug treatment for treating hyperglycaemia/diabetes in hospitalised patients is insulin and we make recommendations for adapt the theoretical insulin action to the nutrition infusion regimen. We also addressed recommendations for future investigation. CONCLUSIONS This recommendations about artificial nutrition in patients with diabetes or stress hyperglycaemia can add value to clinical work.

New clinical practice guideline on enteral feeding in very low birth wieght infants; second part

INTRODUCTION: The nutrition of very low birth weight (VLBW) infants is aimed at promoting a similar growth to that occurring in the uterus. However, in practice this is difficult to achieve and extrauterine growth restriction is frequent. The current tendency is to avoid this restriction by means of early parenteral and enteral nutrition. Nonetheless, uncertainty about many of the practices related with nutrition has resulted in a great variation in the way it is undertaken. In 2009 and 2011 in our hospital there was an unexpected increase in necrotizing enterocolitis. To check to see wether our nutrition policy was involved, we underlook a systematic review and drewup clinical practice guidelines (CPG) about enteral feeding in VLBW infants. New considerations about the duration of the fortification and the use of probiotics have led to an update of these CPG. METHODS: A total of 21 clinical questions were designed dealing with the type of milk, starting age, mode of administration, rate and volume of the increments, fortification, use of probiotics and protocol. Afete conducting a systematic search of the available evidence, the information was contrasted and summarized in order to draw up the recommendations. The quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were determined from the SIGN scale. COMMENT: These CPG aim to help physicians in their decision making. The protocolized application of wellproven measurements reduces the variation in clinical practice and improves results.

The effect of colostrum source (goat vs. sheep) and timing of the first colostrum feeding (2h vs. 14h after birth) on body weight and immune status of artificially reared newborn lambs.

Several factors can affect lamb body weight (BW) and immune status during the first days of life, including colostrum source and timing of the first colostrum feeding. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of colostrum source (goat or sheep) and timing of the first colostrum feeding (2 or 14h after birth) on lamb BW and immune status. In this study, 40 lambs were removed from their dams at birth and randomly assigned into 4 groups of 10 lambs each. Lambs were subsequently fed at 2 or 14h after birth with goat or sheep colostrum. Blood samples and BW recording were performed before feeding. Blood plasma was used to measure the immunoglobulin concentration (IgG and IgM), chitotriosidase activity, and complement system activity (total and alternative pathways). In general, no differences in any of the measured variables were observed among the 4 groups, indicating that neither colostrum source nor timing of the first colostrum feeding had an effect on these variables. These findings may improve management on lamb farms that raise animals under artificial conditions, because our results indicate that it is not necessary to feed colostrum to lambs immediately after birth and that goat colostrum may be used to feed newborn lambs.

New clinical practice guideline on enteral feeding in very low birth weight infants; first part.

The nutrition of very low birth weight (VLBW) infants is aimed at promoting a similar growth to that occurring in the uterus. However, in practice this is difficult to achieve and extrauterine growth restriction is frequent. The current tendency is to avoid this restriction by means of early parenteral and enteral nutrition. Nonetheless, uncertainty about many of the practices related with nutrition has resulted in a great variation in the way it is undertaken. In 2009 and 2011 in our hospital there was an unexpected increase in necrotizing enterocolitis. To check to see whether our nutrition policy was involved, we undertook a systematic review and drew up clinical practice guidelines (CPG) about enteral feeding in VLBW infants. New considerations about the duration of the fortification and the use of probiotics have led to an update of these CPG. METHODS: A total of 21 clinical questions were designed dealing with the type of milk, starting age, mode of administration, rate and volume of the increments, fortification, use of probiotics and protocol. After conducting a systematic search of the available evidence, the information was contrasted and summarized in order to draw up the recommendations. The quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were determined from the SIGN scale. COMMENT: These CPG aim to help physicians in their decision making. The protocolized application of well-proven measurements reduces the variation in clinical practice and improves results.