The European Federation of the Pharmaceutical Industry and Associations' Research and Animal Welfare Group: Assessing and benchmarking 'Culture of Care' in the context of using animals for scientific purpose.

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations' Research and Animal Welfare group members reflected on the concept of a Culture of Care in relation to animal care and use and on differences in its understanding and application across European pharmaceutical companies. The term 'Culture of Care' is used across different regions and organizations but rarely with any defined indicators to support working practice. The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations' Research and Animal Welfare group has developed a framework to help organizations identify gaps or potential areas for improvement in support of a positive Culture of Care. The framework is a tool that identifies five areas of focus for a Culture of Care: company values; strategic approach at establishment level; implementation structures; staff support; and animal care and procedures. The framework is intended as an aid for continuous improvement, highlighting where indicators of good practice are present. We expect it to provide points of reflection and ideas for those looking to implement a Culture of Care in a structured way, while facilitating a professional and strategic approach. To prevent it supporting a 'tick-box' exercise, the framework must not be used as an auditing tool, but as a starting point for consideration and discussion about how care manifests within the context and constraints of individual establishments.

A new species in the tree genus Polyceratocarpus (Annonaceae) from the Udzungwa Mountains of Tanzania.

Polyceratocarpus askhambryan-iringae, an endemic tree species of Annonaceae from the Udzungwa Mountains of Tanzania, is described and illustrated. The new species is identified as a member of the genus Polyceratocarpus by the combination of staminate and bisexual flowers, axillary inflorescences, subequal outer and inner petals, and multi-seeded monocarps with pitted seeds. From Polyceratocarpus scheffleri, with which it has previously been confused, it differs in the longer pedicels, smaller and thinner petals, shorter bracts, and by generally smaller, less curved monocarps that have a clear stipe and usually have fewer seeds. Because Polyceratocarpus askhambryan-iringae has a restricted extent of occurrence, area of occupancy, and ongoing degradation of its forest habitat, we recommend classification of it as Endangered (EN) on the IUCN Red List.

Recommendations from a global cross-company data sharing initiative on the incorporation of recovery phase animals in safety assessment studies to support first-in-human clinical trials.

An international expert group which includes 30 organisations (pharmaceutical companies, contract research organisations, academic institutions and regulatory bodies) has shared data on the use of recovery animals in the assessment of pharmaceutical safety for early development. These data have been used as an evidence-base to make recommendations on the inclusion of recovery animals in toxicology studies to achieve scientific objectives, while reducing animal use. Recovery animals are used in pharmaceutical development to provide information on the potential for a toxic effect to translate into long-term human risk. They are included on toxicology studies to assess whether effects observed during dosing persist or reverse once treatment ends. The group devised a questionnaire to collect information on the use of recovery animals in general regulatory toxicology studies to support first-in-human studies. Questions focused on study design, the rationale behind inclusion or exclusion and the impact this had on internal and regulatory decisions. Data on 137 compounds (including 53 biologicals and 78 small molecules) from 259 studies showed wide variation in where, when and why recovery animals were included. An analysis of individual study and programme design shows that there are opportunities to reduce the use of recovery animals without impacting drug development.

An approach to minimise dog use in regulatory toxicology: production of a best practice guide to study design.

The primary non-rodent species used in toxicology is the dog. It is generally agreed that, for ethical reasons, dog use should be reduced to the minimum consistent with maintaining the scientific quality of toxicology studies and ensuring human safety. Dog use in toxicology has been discussed widely, both from a scientific and ethical viewpoint, and there appears to be real potential for achieving significant reductions in the number of dogs used in pharmaceutical safety testing. An industry animal welfare initiative commenced in 2000, with the aim of evaluating and, where possible, putting into practice, scientifically valid approaches to minimise dog use in regulatory toxicology without increasing the use of other non-rodent species, such as non-human primates or minipigs. The study's Steering Group categorised potential reduction approaches into three distinct areas, one of which is the production of a best practice guide on aspects of study design, including: group sizes, use of control animals, single sex studies and design of maximum tolerated dose (MTD) studies. Information on current practice and experience within the pharmaceutical industry is now being analysed, and additional input is invited.

Preclinical safety evaluation using nonrodent species: an industry/welfare project to minimize dog use.

This review of the dog, the primary nonrodent species used in toxicology, and its use in the safety evaluation of pharmaceuticals, provides data on the number used in particular projects in an effort to establish a baseline from which some minimization can be measured. Opportunities for reduction and replacement, as identified by a European Industry/Welfare Steering Group, are discussed. The three distinct areas of potential approaches to minimize dog use are categorized as industrial cooperation/data sharing, achieving best practice in study design, and assessing the need for a particular study. The Steering Group prioritized the approaches based on the impact on the number of animals used, the impact on the welfare of the remaining animals, the potential for industry's acceptance of the scientific approach, the potential for regulators' acceptance of the validated approach, and the time/cost of evaluation or implementation. Examples of each category are presented, and the work needed to facilitate industry/regulatory change is discussed.