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.

Perioperative intravenous iron; an upfront therapy for treating anaemia and reducing transfusion requirements.

Perioperative anaemia, with iron deficiency being its leading cause, is a frequent condition among surgical patients, and has been linked to increased postoperative morbidity and mortality, and decreased quality of life. Postoperative anaemia is even more frequent and is mainly caused by perioperative blood loss, aggravated by inflammation-induced blunting of erythropoiesis. Allogenic transfusion is commonly used for treating acute perioperative anaemia, but it also increases the rate of morbidity and mortality in surgical and critically ill patients. Thus, overall concerns about adverse effects of both preoperative anaemia and allogeneic transfusion have prompted the review of transfusion practice and the search for safer and more biologically rational treatment options. In this paper, the role of intravenous iron therapy (mostly with iron sucrose and ferric carboxymaltose), as a safe and efficacious tool for treating anaemia and reducing transfusion requirements in surgical patients, as well as in other medical areas, has been reviewed. From the analysis of published data and despite the lack of high quality evidence in some areas, it seems fair to conclude that perioperative intravenous iron administration, with or without erythropoiesis stimulating agents, is safe, results in lower transfusion requirements and hastens recovery from postoperative anaemia. In addition, some studies have reported decreased rates of postoperative infection and mortality, and shorter length of hospital stay in surgical patients receiving intravenous iron.

Digital inmigrants and digital natives expectation collection in the Andalusian Public Health System Virtual Library: communication with our users

The Andalusian Public Health System Virtual Library (Biblioteca Virtual del Sistema Sanitario Público de Andalucía, BV-SSPA) provides access to health information resources and services to healthcare professionals through its Website. This virtual environment demands higher users’ knowledge in order to satisfy of the need of information of our users, as digital natives as digital immigrants, improving at the same time the communication with all of them. 1. To collect clients' views and expectations according to their nature of digital natives and immigrants. 2. To know our online reputation. A Collecting User Expectation Questionnaire will be built, taking into account the segmentation of the BV-SSPA users’ professional groups of the Andalusian Public Health System. A pilot test will be run to check the survey dimensions and items about practices, attitudes and knowledge of our users. Two Quality Function Deployment (QFD) matrices will enable the BV-SSPA services to be targeted to our digital natives or digital immigrants, according to their nature, finding the best way to satisfy their information needs. We provide feedback on BV-SSPA: users can have the opportunity to post feedback about the site via the 'Contact us' section and comment about their experience. And Web 2.0 is a shop window, providing the opportunity to show the comments; and through time, our online reputation will be built, but the BV-SSPA must manage its own personal branding. Web 2.0 tools are a driver of improvement, because they provide a key source of insight into people's attitudes. Besides, the BV-SSPA digital identity will be analyzed through indicators like major search engine referrals breakdown, top referring sites (non search engines), or top search engine referral phrases, among others. Definition of digital native and digital immigrant profiles of the BV-SSPA, and their difference, will be explained by their expectations. The design of the two QFD matrices will illustrate in just one graph the requirements of both groups for tackling digital abilities and inequalities. The BV-SSPA could deliver information and services through alternative channels. On the other hand, we are developing a strategy to identify, to measure and to manage a digital identity through communication with the user and to find out our online reputation. With the use of different tools from quantitative and qualitative methodology, and the opportunities offered by Web 2.0 tools, the BV-SSPA will know the expectations of their users as a first step to satisfy their necessities. Personalization is pivotal to the success of the Site, delivering tailored content to individuals based on their recorded preferences. The valuable user research can be used during new product development and redesign. Besides positive interaction let us build trust, show authenticity, and foster loyalty: we improve with effort, communication and show.

Liver safety assessment: required data elements and best practices for data collection and standardization in clinical trials.

A workshop was convened to discuss best practices for the assessment of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in clinical trials. In a breakout session, workshop attendees discussed necessary data elements and standards for the accurate measurement of DILI risk associated with new therapeutic agents in clinical trials. There was agreement that in order to achieve this goal the systematic acquisition of protocol-specified clinical measures and lab specimens from all study subjects is crucial. In addition, standard DILI terms that address the diverse clinical and pathologic signatures of DILI were considered essential. There was a strong consensus that clinical and lab analyses necessary for the evaluation of cases of acute liver injury should be consistent with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on pre-marketing risk assessment of DILI in clinical trials issued in 2009. A recommendation that liver injury case review and management be guided by clinicians with hepatologic expertise was made. Of note, there was agreement that emerging DILI signals should prompt the systematic collection of candidate pharmacogenomic, proteomic and/or metabonomic biomarkers from all study subjects. The use of emerging standardized clinical terminology, CRFs and graphic tools for data review to enable harmonization across clinical trials was strongly encouraged. Many of the recommendations made in the breakout session are in alignment with those made in the other parallel sessions on methodology to assess clinical liver safety data, causality assessment for suspected DILI, and liver safety assessment in special populations (hepatitis B, C, and oncology trials). Nonetheless, a few outstanding issues remain for future consideration.