Managing COVID-19 Lockdown Impacts: Sustaining GLP Compliance and Man Material Medium (MMM) Strategy for Augmenting Prevention of Workplace Infections

Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) is a well-established global system that encompass a set of principles or a framework for defining how laboratory studies are planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported, and stored for future reference. It is important that compliance with the principles of GLP continues to be maintained. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic lockdowns in various countries, including India, have been sudden and over an extended duration. Although every GLP laboratory has Standard Operating Procedure for disaster management, the sudden lockdown due to COVID-19 created specific emergency procedures related to this situation such as travel bans, safe distancing, and work from home notifications. Good Laboratory Practice compliances in the context of animal experimentation during and post lockdown period need effective managerial responses that are not just flexible and innovative but can ensure they are well-calibrated to the challenges of business continuity and maintenance of health directives. On-the-ground realities suggest there may still be practical challenges to compliance, and guidelines may not always be complied with. This article discusses the issues that may be encountered due to COVID-19 that could potentially impact the GLP status of a study and suggests ways to manage them so as to minimize or prevent infection with COVID-19. We propose an MMM (Man, Material, and Medium) strategy to ensure compliance with health directives and guidelines that will help staff to keep themselves and others safe in the workplace while endeavoring to comply with GLP requirements.

[Development and validation of analytical techniques for the determination of blood biomarkers in preclinical trials. Why and what for?]

New drug discovery involves preclinical studies to demonstrate its effectivity and safety for further tests in humans. This leads to the need to develop technologies that take advantage of the new analytical tools available within a context where the results of the tests carried out are fully documented, under auditable systems of good laboratory practice. This review updates and describes some of the tests carried out in the preclinical stage of the development of a new drug and the current state of the analytical technology used to measure different blood biomarkers of interest. Biomarker parameters were analyzed at the physiological level, considering both the validation regulations of the analytical techniques used for their determination as the problems that arise when trying to apply them, since many of these biomarkers are endogenous compounds in the used matrices.

Sampling and Quality Assurance and Quality Control: A Guide for Scientists Investigating the Occurrence of Microplastics Across Matrices

Plastic pollution is a defining environmental contaminant and is considered to be one of the greatest environmental threats of the Anthropocene, with its presence documented across aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The majority of this plastic debris falls into the micro (1 μm-5 mm) or nano (1-1000 nm) size range and comes from primary and secondary sources. Its small size makes it cumbersome to isolate and analyze reproducibly, and its ubiquitous distribution creates numerous challenges when controlling for background contamination across matrices (e.g., sediment, tissue, water, air). Although research on microplastics represents a relatively nascent subfield, burgeoning interest in questions surrounding the fate and effects of these debris items creates a pressing need for harmonized sampling protocols and quality control approaches. For results across laboratories to be reproducible and comparable, it is imperative that guidelines based on vetted protocols be readily available to research groups, many of which are either new to plastics research or, as with any new subfield, have arrived at current approaches through a process of trial-and-error rather than in consultation with the greater scientific community. The goals of this manuscript are to (i) outline the steps necessary to conduct general as well as matrix-specific quality assurance and quality control based on sample type and associated constraints, (ii) briefly review current findings across matrices, and (iii) provide guidance for the design of sampling regimes. Specific attention is paid to the source of microplastic pollution as well as the pathway by which contamination occurs, with details provided regarding each step in the process from generating appropriate questions to sampling design and collection.

Assessing dose-response relationships for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs): a focus on non-monotonicity

The fundamental principle in regulatory toxicology is that all chemicals are toxic and that the severity of effect is proportional to the exposure level. An ancillary assumption is that there are no effects at exposures below the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL), either because no effects exist or because they are not statistically resolvable, implying that they would not be adverse. Chemicals that interfere with hormones violate these principles in two important ways: dose-response relationships can be non-monotonic, which have been reported in hundreds of studies of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs); and effects are often observed below the LOAEL, including all environmental epidemiological studies examining EDCs. In recognition of the importance of this issue, Lagarde et al. have published the first proposal to qualitatively assess non-monotonic dose response (NMDR) relationships for use in risk assessments. Their proposal represents a significant step forward in the evaluation of complex datasets for use in risk assessments. Here, we comment on three elements of the Lagarde proposal that we feel need to be assessed more critically and present our arguments: 1) the use of Klimisch scores to evaluate study quality, 2) the concept of evaluating study quality without topical experts' knowledge and opinions, and 3) the requirement of establishing the biological plausibility of an NMDR before consideration for use in risk assessment. We present evidence-based logical arguments that 1) the use of the Klimisch score should be abandoned for assessing study quality; 2) evaluating study quality requires experts in the specific field; and 3) an understanding of mechanisms should not be required to accept observable, statistically valid phenomena. It is our hope to contribute to the important and ongoing debate about the impact of NMDRs on risk assessment with positive suggestions.

Biomonitoring studies should be used by regulatory agencies to assess human exposure levels and safety of bisphenol A

BACKGROUND

Within the past 3 years, four major evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA) safety have been undertaken. However, these assessments have arrived at quite different conclusions regarding the safety of BPA at current human exposure levels.

OBJECTIVES

We compared the reasons provided by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) BPA risk assessment panel for their conclusion that human exposures are negligible with the conclusions reached by the other panels, with all panels having the same body of literature at their disposal.

DISCUSSION

The EFSA panel dismissed > or = 80 biomonitoring studies that documented significant levels of BPA exposure in humans, including internal exposures to unconjugated BPA, on the basis that they did not match a model of BPA metabolism. Instead, the EFSA panel relied on two toxicokinetic studies-conducted in 15 adults administered BPA-to draw conclusions about exposure levels in the population, including exposures of neonates.

CONCLUSIONS

As with all exposure assessments, models should be developed to explain actual data that are collected. In the case of BPA, samples from a large number of human subjects clearly indicate that humans are internally exposed to unconjugated BPA. The dismissal of these biomonitoring studies simply because their results do not conform to a model violates scientific principles. Expert panels should evaluate all data-including human biomonitoring studies-to make informed risk assessments.

Why public health agencies cannot depend on good laboratory practices as a criterion for selecting data: the case of bisphenol A

BACKGROUND

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.