How is family health history discussed in routine primary healthcare? A qualitative study of archived family doctor consultations.

OBJECTIVES: Family health history underpins genetic medicine. Our study aimed to explore language and patterns of communication relating to family health history observed in interactions between general practitioners (GPs) and their patients within routine primary care consultations. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of patient and GP routine consultation data (n=252). PARTICIPANTS: Consultations that included 'family health history' were eligible for inclusion (n=58). PRIMARY OUTCOMES: A qualitative inductive analysis of the interactions from consultation transcripts. RESULTS: 46/58 conversations about family health history were initiated by the GP. Most discussions around family history lasted for between approximately 1 to 2 min. Patients were invited to share family health history through one of two ways: non-specific enquiry (eg, by asking the patient about 'anything that runs in the family'); or specific enquiry where they were asked if they had a 'strong family history' in relation to a particular condition, for example, breast cancer. Patients often responded to either approach with a simple no, but fuller negative responses also occurred regularly and typically included an account of some kind (eg, explaining family relationships/dynamics which impeded or prevented the accessibility of information). CONCLUSIONS: Family health history is regarded as a genetic test and is embedded in the sociocultural norms of the patient from whom information is being sought. Our findings highlight that it is more complex than asking simply if 'anything' runs in the family. As the collection of family health history is expected to be more routine, it will be important to also consider it from sociocultural perspectives in order to help mitigate any inequities in how family history is collected, and therefore used (or not) in a person's healthcare. Orientating an enquiry away from 'anything' and asking more specific details about particular conditions may help facilitate the dialogue.

Including Digital Sequence Data in the Nagoya Protocol Can Promote Data Sharing.

The Nagoya Protocol (NP), a legal framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), formalises fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from biological diversity. It encompasses biological samples and associated indigenous knowledge, with equitable return of benefits to those providing samples. Recent proposals that the use of digital sequence information (DSI) derived from samples should also require benefit-sharing under the NP have raised concerns that this might hamper research progress. Here, we propose that formalised benefit-sharing for biological data use can increase willingness to participate in research and share data, by ensuring equitable collaboration between sample providers and researchers, and preventing exploitative practices. Three case studies demonstrate how equitable benefit-sharing agreements might build long-term collaborations, furthering research for global benefits.

Rights, interests and expectations: Indigenous perspectives on unrestricted access to genomic data.

Addressing Indigenous rights and interests in genetic resources has become increasingly challenging in an open science environment that promotes unrestricted access to genomic data. Although Indigenous experiences with genetic research have been shaped by a series of negative interactions, there is increasing recognition that equitable benefits can only be realized through greater participation of Indigenous communities. Issues of trust, accountability and equity underpin Indigenous critiques of genetic research and the sharing of genomic data. This Perspectives article highlights identified issues for Indigenous communities around the sharing of genomic data and suggests principles and actions that genomic researchers can adopt to recognize community rights and interests in data.

Management of organic impurities in small molecule medicinal products: Deriving safe limits for use in early development.

Management of organic non-mutagenic impurities (NMIs) in medicinal products is regulated by the ICH Q3A, B and C guidelines that are applicable at late stages of clinical development (Phase III onwards) and as a consequence there is no guidance for the assessment and control of NMIs in early clinical trials. An analysis of several key in vivo toxicology databases supports the ICH Q3A defined concept that a lifetime dose to 1 mg/day of a NMI would not represent a safety concern to patients. In conjunction with routine (Q)SAR approaches, this 1 mg/day value could be used as a universal qualification threshold for a NMI during any stage of clinical development. This analysis also proposes that modification of this 1 mg/day dose using an established methodology (i.e. Modified Haber's Law) could support 5 mg/day or 0.7% (whichever is lower) as an acceptable limit for a NMI in a drug substance or product in early clinical studies (<6 months). Given the controlled nature of clinical development and the knowledge that most toxicities are dose and duration dependent, these proposed NMI limits provide assurance of patient safety throughout clinical development, without the requirement to commission dedicated in vivo toxicology impurity qualification studies.

The 3T3 neutral red uptake phototoxicity test: practical experience and implications for phototoxicity testing--the report of an ECVAM-EFPIA workshop.

This is the report from the "ECVAM-EFPIA workshop on 3T3 NRU Phototoxicity Test: Practical Experience and Implications for Phototoxicity Testing", jointly organized by ECVAM and EFPIA and held on the 25-27 October 2010 in Somma Lombardo, Italy. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) was established in 1991 within the European Commission Joint Research, based on a Communication from the European Commission (1991). The main objective of ECVAM is to promote the scientific and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods which are of importance to the biosciences and which reduce, refine and replace the use of laboratory animals. The European Federation of Pharmaceuticals Industries and Association (EFPIA) represent the pharmaceutical industry operating in Europe. Through its direct membership of 31 national associations and 40 leading pharmaceutical companies, EFPIA is the voice on the EU scene of 2200 companies committed to researching, developing and bringing to patients new medicines that improve health and the quality of life around the world. The workshop, co-chaired by Joachim Kreysa (ECVAM) and Phil Wilcox (GSK, EFPIA) involved thirty-five experts from academia, regulatory authorities and industry, invited to contribute with their experiences in the field of phototoxicology. The main objectives of the workshop were: -to present 'in use' experience of the pharmaceutical industry with the 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test (3T3 NRU-PT), -to discuss why it differs from the results in the original validation exercise, -to discuss technical issues and consider ways to improve the usability of the 3T3 NRU-PT for (non-topical) pharmaceuticals, e.g., by modifying the threshold of chemical light absorption to trigger photo-toxicological testing, and by modifying technical aspects of the assay, or adjusting the criteria used to classify a positive response. During the workshop, the assay methodology was reviewed by comparing the OECD Test Guideline (TG 432) with the protocols used in testing laboratories, data from EFPIA and JPMA 'surveys' were presented and possible reasons for the outcomes were discussed. Experts from cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries reported on their experience with the 3T3 NRU-PT and evidence was presented for phototoxic clinical symptoms that could be linked to certain relevant molecules. Brainstorming sessions discussed if the 3T3 NRU-PT needed to be improved and whether alternatives to the 3T3 NRU-PT exist. Finally, the viewpoint from EU and US regulators was presented. In the final session, the conclusions of the meeting were summarized, with action points. It was concluded that the 3T3 NRU-PT identifies phototoxicological hazards with a 100% sensitivity, and thus is accepted as the tier one test that correctly identifies the absence of phototoxic potential. Consequently, positive results in the 3T3 NRU-PT often do not translate into a clinical phototoxicity risk. Possible ways to improve the practical use of this assay include: (i) adaptation of changed UV/vis-absorption criteria as a means to reduce the number of materials tested, (ii) reduction of the highest concentration to be tested, and (iii) consideration of modifying the threshold criteria for the prediction of a positive call in the test.

Cycloheximide and disulfoton are positive in the photoclastogencity assay but do not absorb UV irradiation: another example of pseudophotoclastogenicity?

There is considerable concern regarding the biological plausibility of the response of certain chemicals in the in vitro photoclastogenicity assay, suggesting that this assay is oversensitive and lacks specificity. To explore this further, four coded compounds (aminotriazole, propantheline bromide, cycloheximide and disulfoton) were evaluated for their potential response in a photoclastogenicity assay in cultured Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells. None of the four compounds were shown to absorb ultraviolet radiation (UVR) or visible light in the 290- to 700-nm region of the electromagnetic spectrum. A fifth coded compound, tetracycline, which absorbs UVR, was also tested as this has previously been shown to be phototoxic in vitro (3T3-NRU assay) and is cytotoxic, but not genotoxic, at high concentrations in standard 'dark' genotoxicity assays in mammalian cells. The results showed that cycloheximide, disulfoton and tetracycline were clastogenic in CHO cells following UVR exposure (solar-simulated light at 700 mJ/cm(2)) but not in the absence of UVR. Aminotriazole and propantheline were negative in the presence and absence of UVR exposure. Follow-up testing showed that neither cycloheximide nor disulfoton was positive in the 3T3-NRU assay, the standard in vitro regulatory test for phototoxicity, a result consistent with their inability to absorb UVR. These data suggest that both cycloheximide and disulfoton are pseudophotoclastogens, like zinc oxide. Together, these data question the specificity of the in vitro photoclastogencity assay in CHO cells and raises further concern regarding its use for the assessment of chemical photosafety for regulatory purposes. At the very least, a review of the current guidance documents for the photosafety evaluation of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics should be undertaken urgently.