The ethical dimension in published animal research in critical care: the public face of science

Development and characterization of a fecal-induced peritonitis model of murine sepsis: results from a multi-laboratory study and iterative modification of experimental conditions

BACKGROUND

Preclinical sepsis models have been criticized for their inability to recapitulate human sepsis and suffer from methodological shortcomings that limit external validity and reproducibility. The National Preclinical Sepsis Platform (NPSP) is a consortium of basic science researchers, veterinarians, and stakeholders in Canada undertaking standardized multi-laboratory sepsis research to increase the efficacy and efficiency of bench-to-bedside translation. In this study, we aimed to develop and characterize a 72-h fecal-induced peritonitis (FIP) model of murine sepsis conducted in two independent laboratories. The experimental protocol was optimized by sequentially modifying dose of fecal slurry and timing of antibiotics in an iterative fashion, and then repeating the experimental series at site 1 and site 2.

RESULTS

Escalating doses of fecal slurry (0.5-2.5 mg/g) resulted in increased disease severity, as assessed by the modified Murine Sepsis Score (MSS). However, the MSS was poorly associated with progression to death during the experiments, and mice were found dead without elevated MSS scores. Administration of early antibiotics within 4 h of inoculation rescued the animals from sepsis compared with late administration of antibiotics after 12 h, as evidenced by 100% survival and reduced bacterial load in peritoneum and blood in the early antibiotic group. Site 1 and site 2 had statistically significant differences in mortality (60% vs 88%; p < 0.05) for the same dose of fecal slurry (0.75 mg/g) and marked differences in body temperature between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate a systematic approach to optimizing a 72-h FIP model of murine sepsis for use in multi-laboratory studies. Alterations to experimental conditions, such as dose of fecal slurry and timing of antibiotics, have clear impact on outcomes. Differences in mortality between sites despite rigorous standardization warrants further investigations to better understand inter-laboratory variation and methodological design in preclinical studies.

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.

Investigating the Effect of an Oxytetracycline Treatment on the Gut Microbiome and Antimicrobial Resistance Gene Dynamics in Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)

Antibiotics play a vital role in aquaculture where they are commonly used to treat bacterial diseases. However, the impact of antibiotic treatment on the gut microbiome and the development of antimicrobial resistance in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) over time remains to be fully understood. In this study, fish were fed a single treatment of oxytetracycline (100 mg/kg/day) for eight days, followed by a 14-day withdrawal period. Changes in the distal gut microbiome were measured using 16S rRNA sequencing. In addition, the abundance of antimicrobial resistance genes was quantified using real-time qPCR methods. Overall, the gut microbiome community diversity and structure of Nile tilapia was resilient to oxytetracycline treatment. However, antibiotic treatment was associated with an enrichment in Plesiomonas, accompanied by a decline in other bacteria taxa. Oxytetracycline treatment increased the proportion of tetA in the distal gut of fish and tank biofilms of the treated group. Furthermore, the abundance of tetA along with other tetracycline resistance genes was strongly correlated with a number of microbiome members, including Plesiomonas. The findings from this study demonstrate that antibiotic treatment can exert selective pressures on the gut microbiome of fish in favour of resistant populations, which may have long-term impacts on fish health.

National Preclinical Sepsis Platform: developing a framework for accelerating innovation in Canadian sepsis research

Despite decades of preclinical research, no experimentally derived therapies for sepsis have been successfully adopted into routine clinical practice. Factors that contribute to this crisis of translation include poor representation by preclinical models of the complex human condition of sepsis, bias in preclinical studies, as well as limitations of single-laboratory methodology. To overcome some of these shortcomings, multicentre preclinical studies—defined as a research experiment conducted in two or more research laboratories with a common protocol and analysis—are expected to maximize transparency, improve reproducibility, and enhance generalizability. The ultimate objective is to increase the efficiency and efficacy of bench-to-bedside translation for preclinical sepsis research and improve outcomes for patients with life-threatening infection. To this end, we organized the first meeting of the National Preclinical Sepsis Platform (NPSP). This multicentre preclinical  research collaboration of Canadian sepsis researchers and stakeholders was established to study the pathophysiology of sepsis and accelerate movement of promising therapeutics into early phase clinical trials. Integrated knowledge translation and shared decision-making were emphasized to ensure the goals of the platform align with clinical researchers and patient partners. 29 participants from 10 independent labs attended and discussed four main topics: (1) objectives of the platform; (2) animal models of sepsis; (3) multicentre methodology and (4) outcomes for evaluation. A PIRO model (predisposition, insult, response, organ dysfunction) for experimental design was proposed to strengthen linkages with interdisciplinary researchers and key stakeholders. This platform represents an important resource for maximizing translational impact of preclinical sepsis research.

Surrogate Humane Endpoints in Small Animal Models of Acute Lung Injury: A Modified Delphi Consensus Study of Researchers and Laboratory Animal Veterinarians

OBJECTIVES

In many jurisdictions, ethical concerns require surrogate humane endpoints to replace death in small animal models of acute lung injury. Heterogenous selection and reporting of surrogate endpoints render interpretation and generalizability of findings between studies difficult. We aimed to establish expert-guided consensus among preclinical scientists and laboratory animal veterinarians on selection and reporting of surrogate endpoints, monitoring of these models, and the use of analgesia.

DESIGN

A three-round consensus process, using modified Delphi methodology, with researchers who use small animal models of acute lung injury and laboratory animal veterinarians who provide care for these animals. Statements on the selection and reporting of surrogate endpoints, monitoring, and analgesia were generated through a systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase. Participants were asked to suggest any additional potential statements for evaluation.

SETTING

A web-based survey of participants representing the two stakeholder groups (researchers, laboratory animal veterinarians). Statements were rated on level of evidence and strength of support by participants. A final face-to-face meeting was then held to discuss results.

SUBJECTS

None.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Forty-two statements were evaluated, and 29 were rated as important, with varying strength of evidence. The majority of evidence was based on rodent models of acute lung injury. Endpoints with strong support and evidence included temperature changes and body weight loss. Behavioral signs and respiratory distress also received support but were associated with lower levels of evidence. Participants strongly agreed that analgesia affects outcomes in these models and that none may be necessary following nonsurgical induction of acute lung injury. Finally, participants strongly supported transparent reporting of surrogate endpoints. A prototype composite score was also developed based on participant feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide a preliminary framework that researchers and animal welfare committees may adapt for their needs. We have identified knowledge gaps that future research should address.

Gap Analysis of Swine-Based Hemostasis Research: "Houses of Brick or Mansions of Straw?"

INTRODUCTION

Hemorrhage control is the top priority in far-forward care. Preclinical studies are essential for determining safety and efficacy before novel therapeutics can be tested in humans. Unfortunately, poor methodological quality jeopardizes translational potential.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed 136 recent publications describing swine models of hemostasis and hemorrhage reduction to assess compliance with established standards for scientific reporting. Quality measures were summarized by descriptive statistics; randomization was assessed by using baseline group differences to test the uniform distribution assumption for observed P-values.

RESULTS

Most articles did not report information essential to assess study validity and reliability of experimental results. Studies claiming random allocation showed clear evidence of systematic bias. Sample sizes were small, but nearly all studies reported statistically significant effects in the direction of "benefit." Excessive hypothesis testing increased the risk of false positives.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodological quality was poor. Although funding agencies actively promote good scientific practice, investigators have been slow to comply. Poorly executed and reported animal research is an ethical and translational issue, wasting animals and potentially harming patients. To properly assess the therapeutic benefit of novel interventions, investigators must rely less on rote hypothesis testing, develop skills in experimental design and quantitative analysis, and comply with best-practice reporting guidelines.

Severity Classification of Surgical Procedures and Application of Health Monitoring Strategies in Animal Research Proposals: A Retrospective Review

Animal experimentation has been one of the most controversial areas of animal use, mainly due to the intentional harms inflicted upon the animals used. In an effort to reduce these harms, research on refinement has increased significantly over the past 20 years. However, the extent to which these efforts have helped to reduce the severity of the research procedures, and thus animal suffering, is uncertain. To provide an indication of the awareness and implementation of refinement methods, we reviewed the experimental techniques for 684 surgical interventions described in 506 animal research applications that had been sent to the German competent authorities for approval in 2010. In this paper, we describe and discuss the severity categorisation of the proposed surgeries and the planned health monitoring strategies. We found that the researchers frequently underestimated the levels of pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm that were to be inflicted on the animals. Furthermore, the planned health monitoring strategies were generally flawed. To ensure responsible treatment of animals and high-quality science, adequate training of research workers in recognising and alleviating animal suffering is essential.

Refining rodent models of spinal cord injury

This report was produced by an Expert Working Group (EWG) consisting of UK-based researchers, veterinarians and regulators of animal experiments with specialist knowledge of the use of animal models of spinal cord injury (SCI). It aims to facilitate the implementation of the Three Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement), with an emphasis on refinement. Specific animal welfare issues were identified and discussed, and practical measures proposed, with the aim of reducing animal use and suffering, reducing experimental variability, and increasing translatability within this critically important research field.

The Influence of Pain and Analgesia in Rodent Models of Sepsis

Sepsis is a multifaceted host response to infection that dramatically affects patient outcomes and the cost of health care. Animal models are necessary to replicate the complexity and heterogeneity of clinical sepsis. However, these models entail a high risk of pain and distress due to tissue trauma, inflammation, endotoxin-mediated hyperalgesia, and other mechanisms. Several recent studies and initiatives address the need to improve the welfare of animals through analgesics and standardize the models used in preclinical sepsis research. Ultimately, the goal is to provide high-fidelity, humane animal models that better replicate the clinical course of sepsis, to provide more effective translation and advance therapeutic discovery. The purpose of this review is to discuss the current understanding of the roles of pain and analgesia in rodent models of sepsis. The current definitions of sepsis along with an overview of pain in human sepsis are described. Finally, welfare concerns associated with animal models of sepsis and the most recent considerations for relief of pain and distress are reviewed.

Incorporating Laboratory Animal Science into Responsible Biomedical Research

Biomedical research has made great strides in the past century leading to rapid advances in human life expectancy, all derived from improved understanding, prevention, and treatment of many diseases and conditions. Research involving laboratory animals has played a significant role in this medical progress. However, there continues to be controversy surrounding the use of animals in research, and animal models have been questioned regarding their relevance to human conditions. While research fraud and questionable research practices could potentially contribute to this problem, we argue that a relative ignorance of laboratory animal science has contributed to the “uncontrolled vivarium experiment” that runs parallel to the more controlled scientific experiment. Several variables are discussed, including husbandry, animal environment, social housing, and more, that can contribute to this uncontrolled experiment, and that can simultaneously decrease quality of life for rodent test subjects when ignored. An argument is put forward that laboratory animal veterinarians and scientists can and should play an important role in better controlling such variables. Similarly, the laboratory animal veterinarian and scientist should play an important role in responsible science by addressing complex interdisciplinary challenges.

Part I: Minimum Quality Threshold in Preclinical Sepsis Studies (MQTiPSS) for Study Design and Humane Modeling Endpoints

Preclinical animal studies are mandatory before new treatments can be tested in clinical trials. However, their use in developing new therapies for sepsis has been controversial because of limitations of the models and inconsistencies with the clinical conditions. In consideration of the revised definition for clinical sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3), a Wiggers-Bernard Conference was held in Vienna in May 2017 to propose standardized guidelines on preclinical sepsis modeling. The participants conducted a literature review of 260 most highly cited scientific articles on sepsis models published between 2003 and 2012. The review showed, for example, that mice were used in 79% and euthanasia criteria were defined in 9% of the studies. Part I of this report details the recommendations for study design and humane modeling endpoints that should be addressed in sepsis models. The first recommendation is that survival follow-up should reflect the clinical time course of the infectious agent used in the sepsis model. Furthermore, it is recommended that therapeutic interventions should be initiated after the septic insult replicating clinical care. To define an unbiased and reproducible association between a new treatment and outcome, a randomization and blinding of treatments as well as inclusion of all methodological details in scientific publications is essential. In all preclinical sepsis studies, the high standards of animal welfare must be implemented. Therefore, development and validation of specific criteria for monitoring pain and distress, and euthanasia of septic animals, as well as the use of analgesics are recommended. A set of four considerations is also proposed to enhance translation potential of sepsis models. Relevant biological variables and comorbidities should be included in the study design and sepsis modeling should be extended to mammalian species other than rodents. In addition, the need for source control (in case of a defined infection focus) should be considered. These recommendations and considerations are proposed as "best practices" for animal models of sepsis that should be implemented.

The Application of Humane Endpoints and Humane Killing Methods in Animal Research Proposals: A Retrospective Review

Refinement refers to the use of methods that help to minimise animal suffering in the laboratory. Research in this area has increased significantly over the past two decades. However, the extent to which refinements are applied in practice is uncertain. To provide an indication of the implementation and awareness of refinements, we reviewed the experimental techniques for 684 surgical interventions described in 506 animal research applications sent to the German competent authorities for approval in 2010. In this paper, we describe and discuss the appropriateness of the proposed humane endpoints and killing methods. We found that, when the investigators included humane endpoints in their application, these were often lacking in detail and/or were to be implemented at a late stage of suffering. In addition, the choice of method to kill the animals could be improved in the majority of the applications. We provide recommendations for future improvements, based on the recent literature. To ensure scientific rigour, avoid needless animal suffering and enable an accurate harm–benefit analysis, animal researchers have to be knowledgeable about refinement methods and apply them effectively. To assess compliance and ensure that only those studies in which potential benefits outweigh the harms are carried out, reviews such as ours — as well as retrospective assessments of actual harms and benefits — should be conducted widely and regularly, and the findings should be published.

Body temperature and mouse scoring systems as surrogate markers of death in cecal ligation and puncture sepsis

Background

Despite increasing ethical standards for conducting animal research, death is still often used as an endpoint in mouse sepsis studies. Recently, the Murine Sepsis Score (MSS), Mouse Clinical Assessment Score for Sepsis (M-CASS), and Mouse Grimace Scale (MGS) were developed as surrogate endpoint scoring systems for assessing pain and disease severity in mice. The objective of our study was to compare the effectiveness of these scoring systems and monitoring of body temperature for predicting disease progression and death in the cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) sepsis model, in order to better inform selection of surrogate endpoints for death in experimental sepsis.

Methods

C57Bl/6J mice were subjected to control sham surgery, or moderate or severe CLP sepsis. All mice were monitored every 4 h for surrogate markers of death using modified versions of the MSS, M-CASS, and MGS scoring systems until 24 h post-operatively, or until endpoint (inability to ambulate) and consequent euthanasia.

Results

Thirty percent of mice subjected to moderate severity CLP reached endpoint by 24 h post-CLP, whereas 100% undergoing severe CLP reached endpoint within 20 h. Modified MSS, M-CASS, and MGS scores all increased, while body temperature decreased, in a time-dependent and sepsis severity-dependent manner, although modified M-CASS scores showed substantial variability. Receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrate that the last recorded body temperature (AUC = 0.88; 95% CI 0.77–0.99), change in body temperature (AUC = 0.89; 95% CI 0.78–0.99), modified M-CASS (AUC = 0.93; 95% CI 0.85–1.00), and modified MSS (AUC = 0.95; 95% CI 0.88–1.01) scores are all robust for predicting death in CLP sepsis, whereas modified MGS (AUC = 0.78; 95% CI 0.63–0.92) is less robust.

Conclusions

The modified MSS and body temperature are effective markers for assessing disease severity and predicting death in the CLP model, and should thus be considered as valid surrogate markers to replace death as an endpoint in mouse CLP sepsis studies.

Animal experimental research design in critical care

Background

Limited translational success in critical care medicine is thought to be in part due to inadequate methodology, study design, and reporting in preclinical studies. The purpose of this study was to compare reporting of core features of experimental rigor: blinding, randomization, and power calculations in critical care medicine animal experimental research. We hypothesized that these study design characteristics were more frequently reported in 2015 versus 2005.

Methods

We performed an observational bibliometric study to grade manuscripts on blinding, randomization, and power calculations. Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used for analysis. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using kappa and Gwet’s AC1.

Results

A total of 825 articles from seven journals were included. In 2005, power estimations were reported in 2%, randomization in 35%, and blinding in 20% (n = 482). In 2015, these metrics were included in 9, 47, and 36% of articles (n = 343). The increase in proportion for the metrics tested was statistically significant (p < 0.001, p = 0.002, and p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Only a minority of published manuscripts in critical care medicine journals reported on recommended study design steps to increase rigor. Routine justification for the presence or absence of blinding, randomization, and power calculations should be considered to better enable readers to assess potential sources of bias.

Analgesia in clinically relevant rodent models of sepsis

Postoperative analgesia in rodent sepsis models has been considerably neglected in the past. However, intentions to model clinical practice, increasing awareness of animal ethics, efforts to apply the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, refinement), and stricter legislation argue for a change in this respect. In this review, we describe different concepts of analgesia in rodent models of sepsis focusing on opioid agonists as well as non-opioid analgesics. Advantages and pitfalls in study design and side-effects are discussed. Score sheets should be used to adapt analgesia or to terminate experiments using humane endpoints. Further research is needed to differentiate behavioral changes caused by sepsis and pain or as a consequence of analgesia. Information on the efficacy of analgesia in sepsis models is scarce. Hence, studies are needed to identify the best ways to reduce suffering of research animals and thereby optimize the clinically relevant rodent models of sepsis.

Minimally invasive technique for intrathecal administration of morphine in rats: practicality and antinociceptive properties

The intrathecal (IT) route of administration represents a means to reduce the dose of morphine administered for analgesia, potentially minimizing interactions between opioid effects and experimental outcomes. Perceived technical difficulty, and previously described invasive methods, may limit its use. This report describes a minimally invasive technique for IT administration of morphine by direct transcutaneous lumbosacral puncture in rats; and assesses antinociceptive properties of morphine in anaesthetized rats. Rats ( n = 28) anaesthetized with sevoflurane (inspired fraction of sevoflurane: F_iSevo = 2.4%) were randomly allocated to receive: IT morphine (0.2 mg/kg); subcutaneous (SC) morphine (3 mg/kg); SC buprenorphine (0.05 mg/kg); or SC or IT sodium chloride (NaCl). After a wash-in period (40 min), thermal nociceptive stimuli were applied at nine locations corresponding to different rostrocaudal dermatomes of the rat. Nociceptive stimulation cycles were repeated at all locations after successive decrement of F_iSevo by 15%. Presence or absence of gross purposeful movement (GPM) was recorded for each individual stimulation. IT injection of morphine by direct puncture with a 25 G hypodermic needle is easily performed (successful first attempt: 82%) without complications. IT morphine reduced the frequency of GPM following nociceptive thermal stimulation in a way comparable with SC buprenorphine or morphine. It was not possible to delimit any rostral spinal spread of morphine. This report describes a refined and effective technique of administering morphine IT in rats using readily available materials. IT doses being markedly smaller than the systemic equivalent, analgesia could be provided whilst minimizing the potential interactions of non-analgesic opioid effects with research protocols.

Improving animal welfare using continuous nalbuphine infusion in a long-term rat model of sepsis

Background

Sepsis research relies on animal models to investigate the mechanisms of the dysregulated host response to infection. Animal welfare concerns request the use of potent analgesics for the Refinement of existing sepsis models, according to the 3Rs principle. Nevertheless, adequate analgesia is often missing, partly because the effects of analgesics in this particular condition are unknown. We evaluated the use of nalbuphine, an opioid with kappa agonistic and mu antagonistic effects, in rats with and without experimental sepsis.

Methods

Male Wistar rats were anesthetized with isoflurane and instrumented with a venous line for drug administration. Arterial cannulation allowed for blood pressure measurements and blood sampling in short-term experiments of non-septic animals. Nalbuphine (or placebo) was administered intravenously at a dose of 1 mg/kg/h. Long-term (48 h) experiments in awake septic animals included repetitive clinical scoring with the Rat Grimace Scale and continuous heart rate monitoring by telemetry. Sepsis was induced by intraperitoneal injection of faecal slurry. Nalbuphine plasma levels were measured by liquid chromatography—high resolution mass spectrometry.

Results

In anesthetized healthy animals, nalbuphine led to a significant reduction of respiratory rate, heart rate, and mean arterial pressure during short-term experiments. In awake septic animals, a continuous nalbuphine infusion did not affect heart rate but significantly improved the values of the Rat Grimace Scale. Nalbuphine plasma concentrations remained stable between 4 and 24 h of continuous infusion in septic rats.

Conclusions

In anaesthetised rats, nalbuphine depresses respiratory rate, heart rate, and blood pressure. In awake animals, nalbuphine analgesia improves animal welfare during sepsis.

Efficacy of Intrathecal Morphine in a Model of Surgical Pain in Rats

Concerns over interactions between analgesics and experimental outcomes are a major reason for withholding opioids from rats undergoing surgical procedures. Only a fraction of morphine injected intravenously reaches receptors responsible for analgesia in the central nervous system. Intrathecal administration of morphine may represent a way to provide rats with analgesia while minimizing the amount of morphine injected. This study aimed to assess whether morphine injected intrathecally via direct lumbar puncture provides sufficient analgesia to rats exposed to acute surgical pain (caudal laparotomy).In an initial blinded, randomised study, pain-free rats received morphine subcutaneously (MSC, 3mg.kg-1, N = 6), intrathecally (MIT, 0.2mg.kg-1, N = 6); NaCl subcutaneously (NSC, N = 6) or intrathecally (NIT, N = 6). Previously validated pain behaviours, activity and Rat Grimace Scale (RGS) scores were recorded at baseline, 1, 2, 4 and 8h post-injection. Morphine-treated rats had similar behaviours to NaCl rats, but their RGS scores were significantly different over time and between treatments. In a second blinded study, rats (N = 28) were randomly allocated to one of the following four treatments (N = 7): MSC, 3mg.kg-1, surgery; MIT, 0.2mg.kg-1, surgery; NIT, surgery; NSC, sham surgery. Composite Pain Behaviours (CPB) and RGS were recorded as previously. CPB in MIT and MSC groups were not significantly different to NSC group. MSC and MIT rats displayed significantly lower RGS scores than NIT rats at 1 and 8h postoperatively. RGS scores for MIT and MSC rats were not significantly different at 1, 2, and 8h postoperatively. Intraclass correlation value amongst operators involved in RGS scoring (N = 9) was 0.913 for total RGS score. Intrathecal morphine was mostly indistinguishable from its subcutaneous counterpart, providing pain relief lasting up to 8 hours in a rat model of surgical pain. Further studies are warranted to clarify the relevance of the rat grimace scale for assessing pain in rats that have received opioid analgesics.

Expectations for the methodology and translation of animal research: a survey of the general public, medical students and animal researchers in North America

To determine what are considered acceptable standards for animal research (AR) methodology and translation rate to humans, a validated survey was sent to: a) a sample of the general public, via Sampling Survey International (SSI; Canada), Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT; USA), a Canadian city festival (CF) and a Canadian children's hospital (CH); b) a sample of medical students (two first-year classes); and c) a sample of scientists (corresponding authors and academic paediatricians). There were 1379 responses from the general public sample (SSI, n = 557; AMT, n = 590; CF, n = 195; CH, n = 102), 205/330 (62%) medical student responses, and 23/323 (7%, too few to report) scientist responses. Asked about methodological quality, most of the general public and medical student respondents expect that: AR is of high quality (e.g. anaesthesia and analgesia are monitored, even overnight, and 'humane' euthanasia, optimal statistical design, comprehensive literature review, randomisation and blinding, are performed), and costs and difficulty are not acceptable justifications for lower quality (e.g. costs of expert consultation, or more laboratory staff). Asked about their expectations of translation to humans (of toxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity and treatment findings), most expect translation more than 60% of the time. If translation occurred less than 20% of the time, a minority disagreed that this would "significantly reduce your support for AR". Medical students were more supportive of AR, even if translation occurred less than 20% of the time. Expectations for AR are much higher than empirical data show to have been achieved.

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.

Refinement of animal models of sepsis and septic shock

This report aims to facilitate the implementation of the Three Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement) in the use of animal models or procedures involving sepsis and septic shock, an area where there is the potential of high levels of suffering for animals. The emphasis is on refinement because this has the greatest potential for immediate implementation. Specific welfare issues are identified and discussed, and practical measures are proposed to reduce animal use and suffering as well as reducing experimental variability and increasing translatability. The report is based on discussions and submissions from a nonregulatory expert working group consisting of veterinarians, animal technologists, and scientists with expert knowledge relevant to the field.

Anesthesia and Monitoring in Small Laboratory Mammals Used in Anesthesiology, Respiratory and Critical Care Research: A Systematic Review on the Current Reporting in Top-10 Impact Factor Ranked Journals

RATIONALE

This study aimed to investigate the quality of reporting of anesthesia and euthanasia in experimental studies in small laboratory mammals published in the top ten impact factor journals.

METHODS

A descriptive systematic review was conducted and data was abstracted from the ten highest ranked journals with respect to impact factor in the categories 'Anesthesiology', 'Critical Care Medicine' and 'Respiratory System' as defined by the 2012 Journal Citation Reports. Inclusion criteria according to PICOS criteria were as follows: 1) population: small laboratory mammals; 2) intervention: any form of anesthesia and/or euthanasia; 3) comparison: not specified; 4) primary outcome: type of anesthesia, anesthetic agents and type of euthanasia; secondary outcome: animal characteristics, monitoring, mechanical ventilation, fluid management, postoperative pain therapy, animal care approval, sample size calculation and performed interventions; 5) study: experimental studies. Anesthesia, euthanasia, and monitoring were analyzed per performed intervention in each article.

RESULTS

The search yielded 845 articles with 1,041 interventions of interest. Throughout the manuscripts we found poor quality and frequency of reporting with respect to completeness of data on animal characteristics as well as euthanasia, while anesthesia (732/1041, 70.3%) and interventions without survival (970/1041, 93.2%) per se were frequently reported. Premedication and neuromuscular blocking agents were reported in 169/732 (23.1%) and 38/732 (5.2%) interventions, respectively. Frequency of reporting of analgesia during (117/610, 19.1%) and after painful procedures (38/364, 10.4%) was low. Euthanasia practice was reported as anesthesia (348/501, 69%), transcardial perfusion (37/501, 8%), carbon dioxide (26/501, 6%), decapitation (22/501, 5%), exsanguination (23/501, 5%), other (25/501, 5%) and not specified (20/501, 4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review revealed insufficient reporting of anesthesia and euthanasia methods throughout experimental studies in small laboratory mammals. Specific guidelines for anesthesia and euthanasia regimens should be considered to achieve comparability, quality of animal experiments and animal welfare. These measures are of special interest when translating experimental findings to future clinical applications.

Applying refinement to the use of mice and rats in rheumatoid arthritis research

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a painful, chronic disorder and there is currently an unmet need for effective therapies that will benefit a wide range of patients. The research and development process for therapies and treatments currently involves in vivo studies, which have the potential to cause discomfort, pain or distress. This Working Group report focuses on identifying causes of suffering within commonly used mouse and rat ‘models’ of RA, describing practical refinements to help reduce suffering and improve welfare without compromising the scientific objectives. The report also discusses other, relevant topics including identifying and minimising sources of variation within in vivo RA studies, the potential to provide pain relief including analgesia, welfare assessment, humane endpoints, reporting standards and the potential to replace animals in RA research.

Expectations for methodology and translation of animal research: a survey of health care workers

Background

Health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR); therefore, an awareness of the empirical costs and benefits of animal research is an important issue for HCW. We aim to determine what health-care-workers consider should be acceptable standards of AR methodology and translation rate to humans.

Methods

After development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory-therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, methodology of AR, and expectations from AR. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P < .05 considered significant.

Results

Response rate was 44/114(39%) (pediatricians), and 69/120 (58%) (nurses/RTs). Asked about methodological quality, most respondents expect that: AR is done to high quality; costs and difficulty are not acceptable justifications for low quality; findings should be reproducible between laboratories and strains of the same species; and guidelines for AR funded with public money should be consistent with these expectations. Asked about benefits of AR, most thought that there are sometimes/often large benefits to humans from AR, and disagreed that “AR rarely produces benefit to humans.” Asked about expectations of translation to humans (of toxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and treatment findings), most: expect translation >40% of the time; thought that misleading AR results should occur <21% of the time; and that if translation was to occur <20% of the time, they would be less supportive of AR. There were few differences between pediatricians and nurses/RTs.

Conclusions

HCW have high expectations for the methodological quality of, and the translation rate to humans of findings from AR. These expectations are higher than the empirical data show having been achieved. Unless these areas of AR significantly improve, HCW support of AR may be tenuous.

The methodological quality of animal research in critical care: the public face of science

BACKGROUND

Animal research (AR) findings often do not translate to humans; one potential reason is the poor methodological quality of AR. We aimed to determine this quality of AR reported in critical care journals.

METHODS

All AR published from January to June 2012 in three high-impact critical care journals were reviewed. A case report form and instruction manual with clear definitions were created, based on published recommendations, including the ARRIVE guidelines. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven AR publications were reviewed. Our primary outcome (animal strain, sex, and weight or age described) was reported in 52 (68%; 95% confidence interval, 56% to 77%). Of the 77 publications, 47 (61%) reported randomization; of these, 3 (6%) reported allocation concealment, and 1 (2%) the randomization procedure. Of the 77 publications, 31 (40%) reported some type of blinding; of these, disease induction (2, 7%), intervention (7, 23%), and/or subjective outcomes (17, 55%) were blinded. A sample size calculation was reported in 4/77 (5%). Animal numbers were missing in the Methods section in 16 (21%) publications; when stated, the median was 32 (range 6 to 320; interquartile range, 21 to 70). Extra animals used were mentioned in the Results section in 31 (40%) publications; this number was unclear in 23 (74%), and >100 for 12 (16%). When reporting most outcomes, numbers with denominators were given in 35 (45%), with no unaccounted numbers in 24 (31%), and no animals excluded from analysis in 20 (26%). Most (49, 64%) studies reported >40, and another 19 (25%) reported 21 to 40 statistical comparisons. Internal validity limitations were discussed in 7 (9%), and external validity (to humans) discussed in 71 (92%), most with no (30, 42%) or only a vague (9, 13%) limitation to this external validity mentioned.

CONCLUSIONS

The reported methodological quality of AR was poor. Unless the quality of AR significantly improves, the practice may be in serious jeopardy of losing public support.

The ethical dimension in published animal research in critical care: the dark side of our moon

The replacement, refinement, and reduction (3Rs) guidelines are the cornerstone of animal welfare practice for medical research. Nowadays, no animal research can be performed without being approved by an animal ethics committee. Therefore, we should expect that any published article would respect and promote the highest standard of animal welfare. However, in the previous issue of Critical Care, Bara and Joffe reported an unexpected finding: animal welfare is extremely poorly reported in critical care research publications involving animal models. This may have a significant negative impact on the reliability of the results and on future funding for our research. The ability of septic shock animal models to translate into clinical studies has been a challenge. Therefore, every means to improve the quality of these models should be pursued. Animal welfare issues should be seen as an additional benefit to achieve this goal. It is therefore critical to draw conclusions from this study to improve the standard of animal welfare in critical care research. This has already been achieved in other fields of research, and we should follow their example.