Anesthesia and analgesia for common research models of adult mice

Anesthesia and analgesia are major components of many interventional studies on laboratory animals. However, various studies have shown improper reporting or use of anesthetics/analgesics in research proposals and published articles. In many cases, it seems "anesthesia" and "analgesia" are used interchangeably, while they are referring to two different concepts. Not only this is an unethical practice, but also it may be one of the reasons for the proven suboptimal quality of many animal researches. This is a widespread problem among investigations on various species of animals. However, it could be imagined that it may be more prevalent for the most common species of laboratory animals, such as the laboratory mice. In this review, proper anesthetic/analgesic methods for routine procedures on laboratory mice are discussed. We considered the available literature and critically reviewed their anesthetic/analgesic methods. Detailed dosing and pharmacological information for the relevant drugs are provided and some of the drugs' side effects are discussed. This paper provides the necessary data for an informed choice of anesthetic/analgesic methods in some routine procedures on laboratory mice.

Transparency in Non-Technical Project Summaries to Promote the Three Rs in Respiratory Disease Research

Non-Technical Project Summaries (NTS) are legal documents that were first introduced by the Directive 2010/63/EU to enhance transparency within scientific animal experimentation. Researchers intending to conduct biological research on animal models must fulfil the NTS requirements by outlining their proposed use of animals and how they plan to implement the Three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement of animal use) in their experiments. This study outlines a novel systematic analysis approach that enables the assessment of NTS transparency based on the accuracy of reporting of certain Three Rs-specific information. This potentially customisable strategy could help toward the development of practical guidelines for use by Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies (AWERBs) in establishments conducting animal research, in the process of scrutinising NTS during their pre-submission review of proposed licence applications. This could help to identify gaps in reporting of Three Rs-specific information relating to the planned animal experiments, which represents a remarkable step toward achieving greater openness in scientific communication. This study supports the concept that NTS transparency can promote the implementation of non-animal alternatives in fields where this is currently lacking, such as respiratory disease research. Although NTS were originally conceived as informative documents for a lay audience, we can conclude that data in NTS can be successfully used as a basis for systematic analysis. By reviewing the NTS, the experimental limitations of the currently available replacement strategies can also be highlighted, potentially pinpointing where there is a need for future method development.

Animal models of Chagas disease and their translational value to drug development

INTRODUCTION

American trypanosomiasis, better known as Chagas disease, is a global public health issue. Current treatments targeting the causative parasite, Trypanosoma cruzi, are limited to two old nitroheterocyclic compounds; new, safer drugs are needed. New tools to identify compounds suitable for parasitological cure in humans have emerged through efforts in drug discovery.

AREAS COVERED

Animal disease models are an integral part of the drug discovery process. There are numerous experimental models of Chagas disease described and in use; rather than going through each of these and their specific features, the authors focus on developments in recent years, in particular the imaging technologies that have dramatically changed the Chagas R&D landscape, and provide a critical view on their value and limitations for moving compounds forward into further development.

EXPERT OPINION

The application of new technological advances to the field of drug development for Chagas disease has led to the implementation of new and robust/standardized in vivo models that contributed to a better understanding of host/parasite interactions. These new models should also build confidence in their translational value for moving compounds forward into clinical development.

The current state of animal models in research: A review

Animal models have provided invaluable information in the pursuit of medical knowledge and alleviation of human suffering. The foundations of our basic understanding of disease pathophysiology and human anatomy can largely be attributed to preclinical investigations using various animal models. Recently, however, the scientific community, citing concerns about animal welfare as well as the validity and applicability of outcomes, has called the use of animals in research into question. In this review, we seek to summarize the current state of the use of animal models in research.

Minimum Information in In Vivo Research

Data quality, reproducibility and reliability are a matter of concern in many scientific fields including biomedical research. Robust, reproducible data and scientific rigour form the foundation on which future studies are built and determine the pace of knowledge gain and the time needed to develop new and innovative drugs that provide benefit to patients. Critical to the attainment of this is the precise and transparent reporting of data. In the current chapter, we will describe literature highlighting factors that constitute the minimum information that is needed to be included in the reporting of in vivo research. The main part of the chapter will focus on the minimum information that is essential for reporting in a scientific publication. In addition, we will present a table distinguishing information necessary to be recorded in a laboratory notebook or another form of internal protocols versus information that should be reported in a paper. We will use examples from the behavioural literature, in vivo studies where the use of anaesthetics and analgesics are used and finally ex vivo studies including histological evaluations and biochemical assays.

'If you are empathetic you care about both animals and people. I am a nurse and I don't like to see suffering anywhere': Findings from 103 healthcare professionals on attitudes to animal experimentation

This report presents qualitative and quantitative data from 103 UK healthcare professionals describing attitudes to the current system of animal testing (to produce medicines and health interventions). To gather qualitative testimony, these healthcare professionals were organised into six separate focus groups (of 18, 17, 17, 15, 17 and 19 participants) where they were asked 'what is your opinion about the current system of animal testing?' The study focussed on attitudes to the current system rather than attitudes to animal testing in general. The healthcare professionals also completed a quantitative attitude scale questionnaire consisting of 20 statements (all favourable) towards the system of animal testing as currently practised. Statements such as 'Testing agencies abide by legislation to safeguard animal welfare' were displayed and the healthcare professionals were invited to agree or disagree with these statements. The results from both the quantitative and qualitative data suggest that healthcare professionals were opposed to the current system of animal experimentation.

Pain and Laboratory Animals: Publication Practices for Better Data Reproducibility and Better Animal Welfare

Scientists who perform major survival surgery on laboratory animals face a dual welfare and methodological challenge: how to choose surgical anesthetics and post-operative analgesics that will best control animal suffering, knowing that both pain and the drugs that manage pain can all affect research outcomes. Scientists who publish full descriptions of animal procedures allow critical and systematic reviews of data, demonstrate their adherence to animal welfare norms, and guide other scientists on how to conduct their own studies in the field. We investigated what information on animal pain management a reasonably diligent scientist might find in planning for a successful experiment. To explore how scientists in a range of fields describe their management of this ethical and methodological concern, we scored 400 scientific articles that included major animal survival surgeries as part of their experimental methods, for the completeness of information on anesthesia and analgesia. The 400 articles (250 accepted for publication pre-2011, and 150 in 2014–15, along with 174 articles they reference) included thoracotomies, craniotomies, gonadectomies, organ transplants, peripheral nerve injuries, spinal laminectomies and orthopedic procedures in dogs, primates, swine, mice, rats and other rodents. We scored articles for Publication Completeness (PC), which was any mention of use of anesthetics or analgesics; Analgesia Use (AU) which was any use of post-surgical analgesics, and Analgesia Completeness (a composite score comprising intra-operative analgesia, extended post-surgical analgesia, and use of multimodal analgesia). 338 of 400 articles were PC. 98 of these 338 were AU, with some mention of analgesia, while 240 of 338 mentioned anesthesia only but not post-surgical analgesia. Journals’ caliber, as measured by their 2013 Impact Factor, had no effect on PC or AU. We found no effect of whether a journal instructs authors to consult the ARRIVE publishing guidelines published in 2010 on PC or AC for the 150 mouse and rat articles in our 2014–15 dataset. None of the 302 articles that were silent about analgesic use included an explicit statement that analgesics were withheld, or a discussion of how pain management or untreated pain might affect results. We conclude that current scientific literature cannot be trusted to present full detail on use of animal anesthetics and analgesics. We report that publication guidelines focus more on other potential sources of bias in experimental results, under-appreciate the potential for pain and pain drugs to skew data, and thus mostly treat pain management as solely an animal welfare concern, in the jurisdiction of animal care and use committees. At the same time, animal welfare regulations do not include guidance on publishing animal data, even though publication is an integral part of the cycle of research and can affect the welfare of animals in studies building on published work, leaving it to journals and authors to voluntarily decide what details of animal use to publish. We suggest that journals, scientists and animal welfare regulators should revise current guidelines and regulations, on treatment of pain and on transparent reporting of treatment of pain, to improve this dual welfare and data-quality deficiency.

'I think it will eventually be done away with': Attitudes among healthcare professionals towards the current system of animal experimentation

This article describes a study of attitudes to the current system of animal experimentation (for the production of health interventions) among 52 UK healthcare professionals. These healthcare professionals participated in three separate focus groups (of 18, 17 and 17 participants) and were invited to respond to the question 'what is your opinion about the current system of animal testing?' The study focused specifically on their views of the current system (rather than their views of animal testing in general). The healthcare professionals were critical of the current system, particularly with regard to regulation, secrecy, validity, unnecessary suffering and welfare.