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.

Assessing the satisfaction and burden within an academic animal care and use program.

Although animal research requires adherence to various regulations and standards, the manner in which compliance is maintained and the degree of additional constraints varies between institutions. Regulatory burden, particularly if institutionally imposed, has become a concern for institutions as increased regulatory expectations result in decreased resources available for research efforts. Faculty, research staff, and support staff engaged in animal research were surveyed to determine what institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) processes were considered burdensome, the perceived value of some suggested modifications, and satisfaction with the IACUC administrative office and the animal resource unit. Although the results revealed overwhelming satisfaction with the IACUC administrative office and the animal resource unit, several IACUC processes were deemed burdensome, and therefore there would be value in modifying IACUC processes. When comparing the value of modifying IACUC processes, different groups within the animal care and use program (ACUP) tended to have different responses on many of the topics. This survey identified several perceived burdensome IACUC processes that would likely benefit individuals if modified. In today's environment of shrinking budgets for biomedical research, minimizing regulatory burden-particularly unnecessary, self-imposed burden-in the ACUP is particularly important to ensure that costs, time, and effort are appropriate to achieve animal welfare and quality of research endeavors.-Norton, J. N., Reynolds, R. P., Chan, C., Valdivia, R. H., Staats, H. F. Assessing the satisfaction and burden within an academic animal care and use program.

Research chimpanzees may get a break.

A recent report by the Institute of Medicine leaves few urgent reasons standing for the continued use of chimpanzees in biomedical research. It is high time to think about their retirement, Frans de Waal argues, without neglecting prospects for non-invasive research on behavior, cognition, and genetics.

Institution animal care and use committees need greater ethical diversity.

In response to public outrage stemming from exposés of animal abuse in research laboratories, the US Congress in 1985 mandated Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) to oversee animal use at institutions receiving federal grants. IACUCs were enjoined to respect public concern about the treatment of animals in research, but they were not specifically instructed whether or not to perform ethical cost-benefit analyses of animal research protocols that IACUCs have chosen, with approval contingent upon a balancing of animal pain and suffering against a reasonable expectation of resultant human benefit. IACUCs have chosen not to make such ethical judgments but, rather, restrict themselves to an advisory role, often tweaking the details of animal-use protocols, but eventually approving all of them. This disinclination by IACUCs to take a broader ethical view of their authority and responsibilities may reflect a membership composition highly skewed towards animal researchers themselves (67%) and institutional veterinarians (15%), both with vested interests in continuing animal research. The resultant ethical monoculture may impair IACUC's ability to meet public concern for laboratory animal welfare. Psychological research has established that unconscious bias affects us all, that deliberations among the like-minded lead to adapting extremist positions, and that groupthink blinds organisations to alternatives that might be obvious to outsiders. Taken together, skewed IACUC membership composition and psychological research insights into unconscious bias and groupthink suggest that an infusion of ethical diversity by increasing the percentage of institutionally unaffiliated members on IACUCs would broaden their ethical perspectives and enable them to better address public concerns about laboratory animal welfare.

A REDCap application that links researchers, animal facility staff and members of the IACUC in animal health monitoring.

Research studies involving animal experimentation are regulated by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). To this end, the IACUC must integrate the information provided by the investigators of each preclinical study and the veterinarians from the animal facility in order to monitor and approve the process. Using a paper-based system to collect animal health and welfare data is a common, albeit time-consuming practice, prone to transcription and reading errors, not to mention inconvenient for veterinarians and investigators wishing to make timely and collaborative decisions when animal welfare is at risk. We created a web-based monitoring system focused on animal health with the potential to improve animal welfare. The data management system is based on REDCap software, which enables data integration in order to offer a solution for animal welfare assessment. The proposed scheme includes key indicators of general health status, such as environment, physical/nutritional information, and behavioral parameters during animal breeding and experimentation, as important components of animal welfare. In addition, the system facilitates communication of this information among researchers, animal facility staff, and the IACUC. REDCap is available to non-profit organizations, and may be adapted and replicated by institutions interested in and responsible for animal care, and used in research. REDCap is an excellent tool for promoting good practices that benefit experimental animal health.

Institutional and IACUC responsibilities for animal care and use education and training programs.

Training and instruction of personnel are important components of animal care and use programs because they help to ensure the health and welfare of the animals and the integrity of the research or testing results. Training also helps to promote the consideration of alternatives, recognition of animal pain and distress, appropriate use of pain-relieving agents, aseptic technique, pre- and post-procedural care, and personnel health and safety. While individuals who provide the care for or conduct research or testing in laboratory animals should take personal responsibility for ensuring that they have the skills to perform their duties, the institution is ultimately responsible for ensuring their competency. The institution is also responsible for providing the training or instruction that is required by federal legislation, regulations, and policies. The institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) is responsible for ensuring, as part of their review of research activities, that the personnel are capable of performing the procedures described. The IACUC must also assess the institution's training program as part of their semiannual animal care and use program review and make recommendations regarding training to the institutional official. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the US regulatory mandates for training and personnel qualification.

A current perspective on the role and needs of IACUC unaffiliated members.

To be considered properly constituted, an IACUC must include at least one member who is unaffiliated with the research institution. The unaffiliated member, whose role on the Committee is to represent the general public, is often a non-scientist with little or no previous exposure to the concepts described in the animal-use protocols he or she is charged with reviewing. Needless to say, this knowledge gap can present problems. The author, himself an unaffiliated IACUC member, provides advice for those who may choose to serve in this capacity and suggestions for the institutions that rely on their services.

The role of the IACUC in ensuring research reproducibility.

There is a "village" of people impacting research reproducibility, such as funding panels, the IACUC and its support staff, institutional leaders, investigators, veterinarians, animal facilities, and professional journals. IACUCs can contribute to research reproducibility by ensuring that reviews of animal use requests, program self-assessments and post-approval monitoring programs are sufficiently thorough, the animal model is appropriate for testing the hypothesis, animal care and use is conducted in a manner that is compliant with external and institutional requirements, and extraneous variables are minimized. The persons comprising the village also must have a shared vision that guards against reproducibility problems while simultaneously avoids being viewed as a burden to research. This review analyzes and discusses aspects of the IACUC's "must do" and "can do" activities that impact the ability of a study to be reproduced. We believe that the IACUC, with support from and when working synergistically with other entities in the village, can contribute to minimizing unintended research variables and strengthen research reproducibility.

Decreasing institutionally imposed regulatory burden for animal research.

With the ever-increasing call to reduce self-imposed regulatory and administrative burden in the animal research oversight process, knowledge of the regulations and a desire to streamline policies and procedures are needed to affect a change in culture. In this opinion piece, we provide details on why institutionally imposed regulatory burden can arise.

The role of a clinical veterinarian in a safety assessment testing facility.

A clinical veterinarian working in a safety assessment testing facility must balance animal welfare concerns with the attainment of sound, reproducible data necessary for regulatory studies. Drawing on her experience as a clinical veterinarian with specialty training in the field of toxicology, and past experience as a Study Director on safety assessment studies, the author describes practices that facilitate the veterinarian's role to ensure animal welfare on safety assessment studies.