A Critical Look at Biomedical Journals' Policies on Animal Research by Use of a Novel Tool: The EXEMPLAR Scale

Assessing Scientific Soundness and Translational Value of Animal Studies on DPP4 Inhibitors for Treating Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Although there is a wide range of animal models of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) used in research; we have limited evidence on their translation value. This paper provides a) a comparison of preclinical animal and clinical results on the effect of five dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors by comparing the pharmaceutical caused glucose changes, and b) an evaluation of methodological and reporting standards in T2DM preclinical animal studies. DPP4 inhibitors play an important role in the clinical management of T2DM: if metformin alone is not sufficient enough to control the blood sugar levels, DPP4 inhibitors are often used as second-line therapy; additionally, DPP-4 inhibitors are also used in triple therapies with metformin and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors or with metformin and insulin. In our analysis of 124 preclinical studies and 47 clinical trials, (1) we found no evidence of species differences in glucose change response to DPP4 inhibitors, which may suggest that, for this drug class, studies in mice and rats may be equally predictive of how well a drug will work in humans; and (2) there is good reporting of group size, sex, age, euthanasia method and self-reported compliance with animal welfare regulations in animal studies but poor reporting of justification of group size, along with a strong bias towards the use of male animals and young animals. Instead of the common non-transparent model selection, we call for a reflective and evidenced-based assessment of predictive validity of the animal models currently available.

Methodological standards, quality of reporting and regulatory compliance in animal research on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review

Objectives

The amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) research community was one of the first to adopt methodology guidelines to improve preclinical research reproducibility. We here present the results of a systematic review to investigate how the standards in this field changed over the 10-year period during which the guidelines were first published (2007) and updated (2010).

Methods

We searched for papers reporting ALS research on SOD1 (superoxide dismutase 1) mice published between 2005 and 2015 on the ISI Web of Science database, resulting in a sample of 569 papers to review, after triage. Two scores-one for methodological quality, one for regulatory compliance-were built from weighted sums of separate sets of items, and subjected to multivariable regression analysis, to assess how these related to publication year, type of study, country of origin and journal.

Results

Reporting standards improved over time. Of papers published after the first ALS guidelines were made public, fewer than 9% referred specifically to these. Of key research parameters, only three (genetic background, number of transgenes and group size) were reported in >50% of the papers. Information on housing conditions, randomisation and blinding was absent in over two-thirds of the papers. Group size was among the best reported parameters, but the majority reported using fewer than the recommended sample size and only two studies clearly justified group size.

Conclusions

General methodological standards improved gradually over a period of 8-10 years, but remained generally comparable with related fields with no specific guidelines, except with regard to severity. Only 11% of ALS studies were classified in the highest severity level (animals allowed to reach death or moribund stages), substantially below the proportion in studies of comparable neurodegenerative diseases such as Huntington's. The existence of field-specific guidelines, although a welcome indication of concern, seems insufficient to ensure adherence to high methodological standards. Other mechanisms may be required to improve methodological and welfare standards.

Publication reform to safeguard wildlife from researcher harm

Despite abundant focus on responsible care of laboratory animals, we argue that inattention to the maltreatment of wildlife constitutes an ethical blind spot in contemporary animal research. We begin by reviewing significant shortcomings in legal and institutional oversight, arguing for the relatively rapid and transformational potential of editorial oversight at journals in preventing harm to vertebrates studied in the field and outside the direct supervision of institutions. Straightforward changes to animal care policies in journals, which our analysis of 206 journals suggests are either absent (34%), weak, incoherent, or neglected by researchers, could provide a practical, effective, and rapidly imposed safeguard against unnecessary suffering. The Animals in Research: Reporting On Wildlife (ARROW) guidelines we propose here, coupled with strong enforcement, could result in significant changes to how animals involved in wildlife research are treated. The research process would also benefit. Sound science requires animal subjects to be physically, physiologically, and behaviorally unharmed. Accordingly, publication of methods that contravenes animal welfare principles risks perpetuating inhumane approaches and bad science.

Impact of Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable (STAIR) Guidelines on Peri-Anesthesia Care for Rat Models of Stroke: A Meta-Analysis Comparing the Years 2005 and 2015

Numerous studies using rats in stroke models have failed to translate into successful clinical trials in humans. The Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable (STAIR) has produced guidelines on the rodent stroke model for preclinical trials in order to promote the successful translation of animal to human studies. These guidelines also underline the importance of anaesthetic and monitoring techniques. The aim of this literature review is to document whether anaesthesia protocols (i.e., choice of agents, mode of ventilation, physiological support and monitoring) have been amended since the publication of the STAIR guidelines in 2009. A number of articles describing the use of a stroke model in adult rats from the years 2005 and 2015 were randomly selected from the PubMed database and analysed for the following parameters: country where the study was performed, strain of rats used, technique of stroke induction, anaesthetic agent for induction and maintenance, mode of intubation and ventilation, monitoring techniques, control of body temperature, vascular accesses, and administration of intravenous fluids and analgesics. For each parameter (stroke, induction, maintenance, monitoring), exact chi-square tests were used to determine whether or not proportions were significantly different across year and p values were corrected for multiple comparisons. An exact p-test was used for each parameter to compare the frequency distribution of each value followed by a Bonferroni test. The level of significant set at < 0.05. Results show that there were very few differences in the anaesthetic and monitoring techniques used between 2005 and 2015. In 2015, significantly more studies were performed in China and significantly fewer studies used isoflurane and nitrous oxide. The most striking finding is that the vast majority of all the studies from both 2005 and 2015 did not report the use of ventilation; measurement of blood gases, end-tidal carbon dioxide concentration, or blood pressure; or administration of intravenous fluids or analgesics. The review of articles published in 2015 showed that the STAIR guidelines appear to have had no effect on the anaesthetic and monitoring techniques in rats undergoing experimental stroke induction, despite the publication of said guidelines in 2009.

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.