Benchmark dose-response analyses for multiple endpoints in drug safety evaluation.

Hazard characterization during pharmaceutical development identifies the candidate drug's potential hazards and dose-response relationships. To date, the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) approach has been employed to identify the highest dose which results in no observed adverse effects. The benchmark dose (BMD) modeling approach describes potential dose-response relationships and has been used in diverse regulatory domains, but its applicability for pharmaceutical development has not previously been examined. Thus, we applied BMD-modeling to all endpoints in three sequential in vivo studies in a drug development setting, including biochemistry, hematology, organ pathology and clinical observations. In order to compare the results across such a broad range of effects, we needed to standardize the choice of the critical effect size (CES) for the different endpoints. A CES of 5%, previously suggested by the European Food Safety Authority, was compared with the study NOAEL and with the General Theory of Effect Size, which takes natural variability into account. Compared to the NOAEL approach, the BMD-modeling approach resulted in more informative estimates of the doses leading to effects. The BMD-modeling approach handled well situations where effects occurred below the lowest tested dose and the study's NOAEL, and seems advantageous to characterize the potential toxicity during safety assessment. The results imply a considerable step forward from the perspective of reducing and refining animal experiments, as more information is yielded from the same number of animals and at lower doses. Taken together, employing BMD-modeling as a substitute, or as a complement, to the NOAEL approach seems appropriate.

Decreased levels of discomfort in repeatedly handled mice during experimental procedures, assessed by facial expressions.

Mice are the most commonly used laboratory animal, yet there are limited studies which investigate the effects of repeated handling on their welfare and scientific outcomes. Furthermore, simple methods to evaluate distress in mice are lacking, and specialized behavioral or biochemical tests are often required. Here, two groups of CD1 mice were exposed to either traditional laboratory handling methods or a training protocol with cup lifting for 3 and 5 weeks. The training protocol was designed to habituate the mice to the procedures involved in subcutaneous injection, e.g., removal from the cage, skin pinch. This protocol was followed by two common research procedures: subcutaneous injection and tail vein blood sampling. Two training sessions and the procedures (subcutaneous injection and blood sampling) were video recorded. The mouse facial expressions were then scored, focusing on the ear and eye categories of the mouse grimace scale. Using this assessment method, trained mice expressed less distress than the control mice during subcutaneous injection. Mice trained for subcutaneous injection also had reduced facial scores during blood sampling. We found a clear sex difference as female mice responded to training faster than the male mice, they also had lower facial scores than the male mice when trained. The ear score appeared to be a more sensitive measure of distress than the eye score, which may be more indicative of pain. In conclusion, training is an important refinement method to reduce distress in mice during common laboratory procedures and this can best be assessed using the ear score of the mouse grimace scale.

Advancing the 3Rs: innovation, implementation, ethics and society.

The 3Rs principle of replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in science has been gaining widespread support in the international research community and appears in transnational legislation such as the European Directive 2010/63/EU, a number of national legislative frameworks like in Switzerland and the UK, and other rules and guidance in place in countries around the world. At the same time, progress in technical and biomedical research, along with the changing status of animals in many societies, challenges the view of the 3Rs principle as a sufficient and effective approach to the moral challenges set by animal use in research. Given this growing awareness of our moral responsibilities to animals, the aim of this paper is to address the question: Can the 3Rs, as a policy instrument for science and research, still guide the morally acceptable use of animals for scientific purposes, and if so, how? The fact that the increased availability of alternatives to animal models has not correlated inversely with a decrease in the number of animals used in research has led to public and political calls for more radical action. However, a focus on the simple measure of total animal numbers distracts from the need for a more nuanced understanding of how the 3Rs principle can have a genuine influence as a guiding instrument in research and testing. Hence, we focus on three core dimensions of the 3Rs in contemporary research: (1) What scientific innovations are needed to advance the goals of the 3Rs? (2) What can be done to facilitate the implementation of existing and new 3R methods? (3) Do the 3Rs still offer an adequate ethical framework given the increasing social awareness of animal needs and human moral responsibilities? By answering these questions, we will identify core perspectives in the debate over the advancement of the 3Rs.

Aggression in Group-Housed Male Mice: A Systematic Review.

Aggression among group-housed male mice is a major animal welfare concern often observed at animal facilities. Studies designed to understand the causes of male mice aggression have used different methodological approaches and have been heterogeneous, using different strains, environmental enrichments, housing conditions, group formations and durations. By conducting a systematic literature review based on 198 observed conclusions from 90 articles, we showed that the methodological approach used to study aggression was relevant for the outcome and suggested that home cage observations were better when studying home cage aggression than tests provoking aggression outside the home cage. The study further revealed that aggression is a complex problem; one solution will not be appropriate for all animal facilities and all research projects. Recommendations were provided on promising tools to minimize aggression, based on the results, which included what type of environmental enrichments could be appropriate and which strains of male mice were less likely to be aggressive.

The 3Rs in animal welfare bodies at Swedish universities - knowledge, attitudes, implementation.

The implementation of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) is emphasized in EU Directive 2010/63. The task of the animal welfare bodies (AWB) is to strengthen animal welfare and develop the 3Rs at research animal facilities. In 2016, we surveyed the knowledge on, attitudes towards and implementation of the 3Rs within AWBs at eight major Swedish universities. Based on responses of 34 closed-ended questions from 44 of 90 AWB members, the overall attitude towards the 3Rs was positive. AWB members did not believe that the 3Rs slow down innovation or result in increased costs, and refinement was considered beneficial for research quality. AWB members were particularly positive towards refinement questions in the survey. A majority of the AWB members predicted that alternative methods will never replace animal use. Researchers as a group represented in the AWBs were significantly less positive towards the 3Rs compared to the group of veterinarians. The tasks of the AWBs, e.g., giving advice on the 3Rs and following up on animal use in projects, were often not carried out in the AWB or not known by the respondents. Our results indicate a need for more practical and regulatory guidance and support to the AWBs. To reach the goal of the EU Directive to phase out animal use in research and education, we suggest that technical expertise in replacement techniques is included in the AWBs. We emphasize the need to strengthen the awareness of the 3Rs among researchers at Swedish universities.

Associations between clinical signs and pathological findings in toxicity testing

Animal testing for toxicity assessment of chemicals and pharmaceuticals must take the 3R principles into consideration. During toxicity testing in vivo, clinical signs are used to monitor animal welfare and to inform about potential toxicity. This study investigated possible associations between clinical signs, body weight change and histopathological findings observed after necropsy. We hypothesized that clinical signs and body weight loss observed during experiments could be used as early markers of organ toxicity. This represents a potential for refinement in terms of improved study man­agement and decreasing of pain and distress experienced during animal experiments. Data from three sequential toxicity studies of an anti-cancer drug candidate in rats were analyzed using the multivariate partial least squares (PLS) regression method. Associations with a predictive value over 80% were found between the occurrence of mild to severe clinical signs and histopathological findings in the thymus, testes, epididymides and bone marrow. Piloerection, eyes half shut and slightly decreased motor activity were most strongly associated with the pathological findings. A 5% body weight loss was found to be a strong empirical predictor of pathological findings but could also be predicted accurately by clinical signs. Thus, we suggest using mild clinical signs and a 5% body weight loss as toxicity markers and as a non-invasive surveillance tool to monitor research animal welfare in toxicity testing. These clinical signs may also enable reduction of animal use due to their informative potential to support scientific decisions regarding drug candidate selection, dose setting, study design, and toxicity assessment.

Nordic symposium on "toxicology and pharmacology without animal experiments-Will it be possible in the next 10 years?"

Toxicological and pharmacological information from human cells and tissues provides knowledge readily applicable to human safety assessment and to the efficacy assessment of pharmaceuticals. The 3R principle in animal studies includes the use of human material in the R of Replacement. The Reduction and Refinement Rs are related to animal use. Knowledge of the 3Rs and successful 3R methods are a prerequisite for the Reduction of animal experiments in the future. More collaboration among researchers using experimental animals and those working in vitro is necessary with mutual respect. The OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals have included the animal-free part of the 3Rs in guidances for the development and reporting of Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs), which is to be part of the Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA). The 3R centres established to help fulfil the Directive 2010/63/EU play an important role to promote the 3Rs and in the development of animal-free toxicology. Research centres in each Nordic country are founded upon solid research activities in cell and organ toxicity, including major EU programmes to promote 3Rs and implementation of good practices and methods broadly in all stakeholders of industry, regulators and academia. In the light of this, the Nordic Symposium on Toxicology and Pharmacology without Animal Experiments addressed more adopted/modified test guidelines or new test guidelines for new end-points, or hazard challenges, new in vitro 3D models, speeding up transfer of knowledge from research to regulation to understand AOP and towards IATA.

Assigning ethical weights to clinical signs observed during toxicity testing.

Reducing the number of laboratory animals used and refining experimental procedures to enhance animal welfare are fundamental questions to be considered in connection with animal experimentation. Here, we explored the use of cardinal ethical weights for clinical signs and symptoms in rodents by conducting trade-off interviews with members of Swedish Animal Ethics Committees in order to derive such weights for nine typical clinical signs of toxicity. The participants interviewed represent researchers, politically nominated political nominees and representatives of animal welfare organizations. We observed no statistically significant differences between these groups with respect to the magnitude of the ethical weights assigned, though the political nominees tended to assign lower weights. Overall, hunched posture was considered the most severe clinical sign and body weight loss the least severe. The ethical weights assigned varied considerably between individuals, from zero to infinite value, indicating discrepancies in prioritization of reduction and refinement. Cardinal ethical weights may be utilized to include both animal welfare refinement and reduction of animal use in designing as well as in retrospective assessment of animal experiments. Such weights may also be used to estimate ethical costs of animal experiments.

ANIMAL WELFARE FROM MOUSE TO MOOSE--IMPLEMENTING THE PRINCIPLES OF THE 3RS IN WILDLIFE RESEARCH.

The concept of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement) was originally developed for improving laboratory animal welfare and is well known in biomedical and toxicologic research. The 3Rs have so far gained little attention in wildlife research, and there could be several reasons for this. First, researchers may prioritize the welfare of populations and ecosystems over the welfare of individual animals. The effects of research on individual animals can, however, impact welfare and research quality at group and population levels. Second, researchers may find it difficult to apply the 3Rs to studies of free-living wildlife because of the differences between laboratory and wild animals, species, research environment, and purpose and design of the studies. There are, however, several areas where it is possible to transfer the 3R principles to wildlife research, including replacement with noninvasive research techniques, reduction with optimized experimental design, and refinement with better methods of capture, anesthesia, and handling. Third, researchers may not have been trained in applying the 3Rs in wildlife research. This training is needed since ethics committees, employers, journal publishers, and funding agencies increasingly require researchers to consider the welfare implications of their research. In this paper, we compare the principles of the 3Rs in various research areas to better understand the possibilities and challenges of the 3Rs in wildlife research. We emphasize the importance of applying the 3Rs systematically throughout the research process. Based on experiences from laboratory research, we suggest three key factors to enhance implementation of the 3Rs in wildlife research: 1) organizational structure and management, 2) 3R awareness, and 3) research innovation, validation, and implementation. Finally, we encourage an interdisciplinary approach to incorporate the 3R principles in wildlife research. For improved animal welfare and increased research quality, researchers have moral obligations to include the 3Rs into all research areas, including wildlife research.

Strategic focus on 3R principles reveals major reductions in the use of animals in pharmaceutical toxicity testing.

The principles of the 3Rs, Replacement, Reduction and Refinement, are being increasingly incorporated into legislations, guidelines and practice of animal experiments in order to safeguard animal welfare. In the present study we have studied the systematic application of 3R principles to toxicological research in the pharmaceutical industry, with particular focus on achieving reductions in animal numbers used in regulatory and investigatory in vivo studies. The work also details major factors influencing these reductions including the conception of ideas, cross-departmental working and acceptance into the work process. Data from 36 reduction projects were collected retrospectively from work between 2006 and 2010. Substantial reduction in animal use was achieved by different strategies, including improved study design, method development and project coordination. Major animal savings were shown in both regulatory and investigative safety studies. If a similar (i.e. 53%) reduction had been achieved simultaneously within the twelve largest pharmaceutical companies, the equivalent reduction world-wide would be about 150,000 rats annually. The results point at the importance of a strong 3R culture, with scientific engagement, collaboration and a responsive management being vital components. A strong commitment in leadership for the 3R is recommended to be translated into cross-department and inter-profession involvement in projects for innovation, validation and implementation. Synergies between all the three Rs are observed and conclude that in silico-, in vitro- and in vivo-methods all hold the potential for applying the reduction R and should be consequently coordinated at a strategic level.