Report of the First ONTOX Stakeholder Network Meeting: Digging Under the Surface of ONTOX Together With the Stakeholders.

The first Stakeholder Network Meeting of the EU Horizon 2020-funded ONTOX project was held on 13-14 March 2023, in Brussels, Belgium. The discussion centred around identifying specific challenges, barriers and drivers in relation to the implementation of non-animal new approach methodologies (NAMs) and probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), in order to help address the issues and rank them according to their associated level of difficulty. ONTOX aims to advance the assessment of chemical risk to humans, without the use of animal testing, by developing non-animal NAMs and PRA in line with 21st century toxicity testing principles. Stakeholder groups (regulatory authorities, companies, academia, non-governmental organisations) were identified and invited to participate in a meeting and a survey, by which their current position in relation to the implementation of NAMs and PRA was ascertained, as well as specific challenges and drivers highlighted. The survey analysis revealed areas of agreement and disagreement among stakeholders on topics such as capacity building, sustainability, regulatory acceptance, validation of adverse outcome pathways, acceptance of artificial intelligence (AI) in risk assessment, and guaranteeing consumer safety. The stakeholder network meeting resulted in the identification of barriers, drivers and specific challenges that need to be addressed. Breakout groups discussed topics such as hazard versus risk assessment, future reliance on AI and machine learning, regulatory requirements for industry and sustainability of the ONTOX Hub platform. The outputs from these discussions provided insights for overcoming barriers and leveraging drivers for implementing NAMs and PRA. It was concluded that there is a continued need for stakeholder engagement, including the organisation of a 'hackathon' to tackle challenges, to ensure the successful implementation of NAMs and PRA in chemical risk assessment.

Pollutant exposure and myocardial injury: Protocol and progress report for a toxicological systematic mapping review.

An increasing body of evidence identifies pollutant exposure as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), while CVD incidence rises steadily with the aging population. Although numerous experimental studies are now available, the mechanisms through which lifetime exposure to environmental pollutants can result in CVD are not fully understood. To comprehensively describe and understand the pathways through which pollutant exposure leads to cardiotoxicity, a systematic mapping review of the available toxicological evidence is needed. This protocol outlines a step-by-step framework for conducting this review. Using the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Health Assessment and Translation (HAT) approach for conducting toxicological systematic reviews, we selected 362 out of 8111 in vitro (17%), in vivo (67%), and combined (16%) studies for 129 potential cardiotoxic environmental pollutants, including heavy metals (29%), air pollutants (16%), pesticides (27%), and other chemicals (28%). The internal validity of included studies is being assessed with HAT and SYRCLE Risk of Bias tools. Tabular templates are being used to extract key study elements regarding study setup, methodology, techniques, and (qualitative and quantitative) outcomes. Subsequent synthesis will consist of an explorative meta-analysis of possible pollutant-related cardiotoxicity. Evidence maps and interactive knowledge graphs will illustrate evidence streams, cardiotoxic effects and associated quality of evidence, helping researchers and regulators to efficiently identify pollutants of interest. The evidence will be integrated in novel Adverse Outcome Pathways to facilitate regulatory acceptance of non-animal methods for cardiotoxicity testing. The current article describes the progress of the steps made in the systematic mapping review process.

Heart disease is a leading global cause of death. Recent research indicates that certain environmental chemicals can worsen heart problems. We're conducting a rigorous review of scientific studies to understand how these chemicals affect the heart. This will inform policymakers and promote non-animal testing methods for cardiotoxicity by providing a clear overview of the toxicological evidence. We have reviewed over 8,000 articles and focused on 362 studies about 129 chemicals, including heavy metals, air pollutants and pesticides, and their effects on the heart. The current manuscript describes the used methods and steps made in this process. The outcome of our systematic review of these 362 articles will be a comprehensive database that will aid the development of alternative testing methods for cardiotoxicity.

The 3Ranker: An AI-based Algorithm for Finding Non-animal Alternative Methods.

The search for existing non-animal alternative methods for use in experiments is currently challenging because of the lack of both comprehensive structured databases and balanced keyword-based search strategies to mine unstructured textual databases. In this paper we describe 3Ranker, which is a fast, keyword-independent algorithm for finding non-animal alternative methods for use in biomedical research. The 3Ranker algorithm was created by using a machine learning approach, consisting of a Random Forest model built on a dataset of 35 million abstracts and constructed with weak supervision, followed by iterative model improvement with expert curated data. We found a satisfactory trade-off between sensitivity and specificity, with Area Under the Curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.85-0.95. Trials showed that the AI-based classifier was able to identify articles that describe potential alternatives to animal use, among the thousands of articles returned by generic PubMed queries on dermatitis and Parkinson's disease. Application of the classification models on time series data showed the earlier implementation and acceptance of Three Rs principles in the area of cosmetics and skin research, as compared to the area of neurodegenerative disease research. The 3Ranker algorithm is freely available at www.open3r.org; the future goal is to expand this framework to cover multiple research domains and to enable its broad use by researchers, policymakers, funders and ethical review boards, in order to promote the replacement of animal use in research wherever possible.

Reporting of 3Rs Approaches in Preclinical Animal Experimental Studies-A Nationwide Study.

The 3Rs aim to refine animal welfare, reduce animal numbers, and replace animal experiments. Investigations disclose that researchers are positive towards 3Rs recommendations from peers. Communication of 3Rs approaches via primary preclinical animal experimental literature may become a fast-forward extension to learn relevant 3Rs approaches if such are reported. This study investigates 3Rs-reporting in peer-reviewed preclinical animal research with at least one author affiliated to a Danish university. Using a systematic search and random sampling, we included 500 studies from 2009 and 2018. Reporting was low and improvement over time limited. A word search for 3R retrieved zero results in 2009 and 3.2% in 2018. Reporting on 3Rs-related sentences increased from 6.4% in 2009 to 18.4% in 2018, "reduction" increased from 2.4% to 8.0%, and "refinement" from 5.2% to 14.4%. Replacement was not reported. Reporting of the methodology was missing. For "reduction", methodology was mentioned in one study in 2009 and 11 studies in 2018, and for "refinement" in 9 and 21, respectively. Twenty-one studies stated compliance with ARRIVE-guidelines or similar without disclosure of details. Reporting of 3Rs approaches in preclinical publications is currently insufficient to guide researchers. Other strategies, e.g., education, interdisciplinary collaboration, and 3Rs funding initiatives, are needed.

Establishing a health-based recommended occupational exposure limit for isoflurane using experimental animal data: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Isoflurane is used as an inhalation anesthetic in medical, paramedical, and veterinary practice. Epidemiological studies suggest an increased risk of miscarriages and malformations at birth related to maternal exposure to isoflurane and other inhalation anesthetics. However, these studies cannot be used to derive an occupational exposure level (OEL), because exposure was not determined quantitatively and other risk factors such as co-exposures to other inhalation anesthetics and other work-related factors may also have contributed to the observed adverse outcomes. The aim of this systematic review project is to assess all available evidence on the effects of isoflurane in studies of controlled exposures in laboratory animals to derive a health-based recommended OEL. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was developed to retrieve all animal studies addressing isoflurane exposure from PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Title-abstract screening will be performed by machine learning, and full-text screening by one reviewer. Discrepancies will be resolved by discussion. We will include primary research in healthy, sexually mature (non human) vertebrates of single exposure to isoflurane. Studies describing combined exposure and treatments with > = 1 vol% isoflurane will be excluded. Subsequently, details regarding study identification, study design, animal model, and intervention will be summarized. All relevant exposure characteristics and outcomes will be extracted. The risk of bias will be assessed by two independent reviewers using an adapted version of the SYRCLE's risk of bias tool and an addition of the OHAT tool. For all outcomes for which dose-response curves can be derived, the benchmark dose (BMD) approach will be used to establish a point of departure for deriving a recommended health-based recommended OEL for 8 h (workshift exposure) and for 15 min (short-term exposure). DISCUSSION: Included studies should be sufficiently sensitive to detect the adverse health outcomes of interest. Uncertainties in the extrapolation from animals to humans will be addressed using assessment factor. These factors are justified in accordance with current practice in chemical risk assessment. A panel of experts will be involved to reach consensus decisions regarding significant steps in this project, such as determination of the critical effects and how to extrapolate from animals to humans. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022308978.

Comparing translational success rates across medical research fields - A combined analysis of literature and clinical trial data.

Many interventions that show promising results in preclinical development do not pass clinical tests. Part of this may be explained by poor animal-to-human translation. Using animal models with low predictability for humans is neither ethical nor efficient. If translational success shows variation between medical research fields, analyses of common practices in these fields could identify factors contributing to successful translation. We assessed translational success rates in medical research fields using two approaches: through literature and clinical trial registers. Literature: We comprehensively searched PubMed for pharmacology, neuroscience, cancer research, animal models, clinical trials, and translation. After screening, 117 review papers were included in this scoping review. Translational success rates were not different within pharmacology (72%), neuroscience (62%), and cancer research (69%). Clinical trials: The fraction of phase-2 clinical trials with a positive outcome was used as a proxy (i.e., an indirect resemblance measure) for translational success. Trials were retrieved from the WHO trial register and categorized into medical research fields following the international classification of disease (ICD-10). Of the phase-2 trials analyzed, 65.2% were successful. Fields with the highest success rates were disorders of lipoprotein metabolism (86.0%) and epilepsy (85.0%). Fields with the lowest success rates were schizophrenia (45.4%) and pancreatic cancer (46.0%). Our combined analyses suggest relevant differences in success rates between medical research fields. Based on the clinical trials, comparisons of practice, e.g., between epilepsy and schizophrenia, might identify factors that influence translational success.

From critical appraisal to risk of bias assessment: clarifying the terminology for study evaluation in JBI systematic reviews.

The foundations for critical appraisal of literature have largely progressed through the development of epidemiologic research methods and the use of research to inform medical teaching and practice. This practical application of research is referred to as evidence-based medicine and has delivered a standard for the health care profession where clinicians are equally as engaged in conducting scientific research as they are in the practice of delivering treatments. Evidence-based medicine, now referred to as evidence-based health care, has generally been operationalized through empirically supported treatments, whereby the choice of treatments is substantiated by scientific support, usually by means of an evidence synthesis. As evidence synthesis methodology has advanced, guidance for the critical appraisal of primary research has emphasized a distinction from the assessment of internal validity required for synthesized research. This assessment is conceptualized and branded in various ways in the literature, such as risk of bias, critical appraisal, study validity, methodological quality, and methodological limitations. This paper provides a discussion of the definitions and characteristics of these terms, concluding with a recommendation for JBI to adopt the term "risk of bias" assessment.

Methodological quality assessment should move beyond design specificity.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the utility of a unified tool (MASTER) for bias assessment against design-specific tools in terms of content and coverage. METHODS: Each of the safeguards in the design-specific tools was compared and matched to safeguards in the unified MASTER scale. The design-specific tools were the JBI, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) tools for analytic study designs. Duplicates, safeguards that could not be mapped to the MASTER scale, and items not applicable as safeguards against bias were flagged and described. RESULTS: Many safeguards across the JBI, SIGN, and NOS tools were common, with a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 23 unique safeguards across various tools. These 3 design-specific toolsets were missing 14 to 26 safeguards from the MASTER scale. The MASTER scale had complete coverage of safeguards within the 3 toolsets for analytic designs. CONCLUSIONS: The MASTER scale provides a unified framework for bias assessment of analytic study designs, has good coverage, avoids duplication, has less redundancy, and is more convenient when used for methodological quality assessment in evidence synthesis. It also allows assessment across designs that cannot be done using a design-specific tool.

Recommendations for robust and reproducible preclinical research in personalised medicine.

BACKGROUND: Personalised medicine is a medical model that aims to provide tailor-made prevention and treatment strategies for defined groups of individuals. The concept brings new challenges to the translational step, both in clinical relevance and validity of models. We have developed a set of recommendations aimed at improving the robustness of preclinical methods in translational research for personalised medicine. METHODS: These recommendations have been developed following four main steps: (1) a scoping review of the literature with a gap analysis, (2) working sessions with a wide range of experts in the field, (3) a consensus workshop, and (4) preparation of the final set of recommendations. RESULTS: Despite the progress in developing innovative and complex preclinical model systems, to date there are fundamental deficits in translational methods that prevent the further development of personalised medicine. The literature review highlighted five main gaps, relating to the relevance of experimental models, quality assessment practices, reporting, regulation, and a gap between preclinical and clinical research. We identified five points of focus for the recommendations, based on the consensus reached during the consultation meetings: (1) clinically relevant translational research, (2) robust model development, (3) transparency and education, (4) revised regulation, and (5) interaction with clinical research and patient engagement. Here, we present a set of 15 recommendations aimed at improving the robustness of preclinical methods in translational research for personalised medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate preclinical models should be an integral contributor to interventional clinical trial success rates, and predictive translational models are a fundamental requirement to realise the dream of personalised medicine. The implementation of these guidelines is ambitious, and it is only through the active involvement of all relevant stakeholders in this field that we will be able to make an impact and effectuate a change which will facilitate improved translation of personalised medicine in the future.

Protocol for a systematic review of good surgical practice guidelines for experimental rodent surgery.

Objective: Surgery is an integral part of many experimental studies. Aseptic and minimal invasive surgical technique and optimal perioperative and post-operative care are prerequisites to achieve surgical success and best possible animal welfare outcomes. Good surgical practice cannot only improve the animal's postoperative recovery, but also study outcome and validity. There seems to be a lack of implementation of good surgical practice during rodent surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to identify, critically evaluate and compare the currently recommended standards and underlying guidelines for rodent surgery-and finally to compile a comprehensive guideline of good surgical practice for rodent surgery. Search strategy: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched to identify guidelines published in peer-reviewed journals. To identify grey literature and unpublished guidelines, we will perform a Google search for published guidelines and search laboratory animal sciences books for relevant book chapters. Additionally, we will conduct a survey among animal researchers enquiring about the guidelines they use. Screening and study selection: For publications retrieved by the systematic search, unique references are screened by two reviewers, first for eligibility based on title and abstract and subsequently for final inclusion based on full text. Eligibility of books is based on title and content, final inclusion based on chapter full text. Guidelines are either retrieved by Google searches or a survey. Google searches will be conducted by at least four of the authors. Thereafter, guidelines will be screened by two of the authors. Data extraction and synthesis: We will extract data from publications, book chapters and guidelines. Based on the extracted data, we will perform a descriptive synthesis of the bibliographical details, guideline development and endorsement, and the prevalence of individual recommendations, including subgroup analysis of the guidance per continent or country and differences between peer-reviewed versus non-peer-reviewed guidance.

Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation.

Lack of translation and irreproducibility challenge preclinical animal research. Insufficient reporting methodologies to safeguard study quality is part of the reason. This nationwide study investigates the reporting prevalence of these methodologies and scrutinizes the reported information's level of detail. Publications were from two time periods to convey any reporting progress and had at least one author affiliated to a Danish University. We retrieved all relevant animal experimental studies using a predefined research protocol and a systematic search. A random sampling of 250 studies from 2009 and 2018 led to 500 publications in total. Reporting of measures known to impact study results estimates were assessed. Part I discloses a simplified two-level scoring "yes/no" to identify the presence of reporting. Part II demonstrates an additional three-level scoring to analyze the reported information's level of detail. Overall reporting prevalence is low, although minor improvements are noted. Reporting of randomization increased from 24.0% in 2009 to 40.8% in 2018, blinded experiment conduct from 2.4% to 4.4%, blinded outcome assessment from 23.6% to 38.0%, and sample size calculation from 3.2% to 14.0%. Poor reporting of details is striking with reporting of the random allocation method to groups being only 1.2% in 2009 and 6.0% in 2018. Reporting of sample size calculation method was 2.4% in 2009 and 7.6% in 2018. Only conflict-of-interest statements reporting increased from 37.6% in 2009 to 90.4%. Measures safeguarding study quality are poorly reported in publications affiliated with Danish research institutions. Only a modest improvement was noted during the period 2009-2018, and the lack of details urgently prompts institutional strategies to accelerate this. We suggest thorough teaching in designing, conducting and reporting animal studies. Education in systematic review methodology should be implemented in this training and will increase motivation and behavior working towards quality improvements in science.

Identifying Key Factors for Accelerating the Transition to Animal-Testing-Free Medical Science through Co-Creative, Interdisciplinary Learning between Students and Teachers.

Even with the introduction of the replacement, reduction, refinement (the three Rs) approach and promising technological developments in animal-testing-free alternatives over the past two decades, a significant number of animal tests are still performed in medical science today. This article analyses which factors could accelerate the transition to animal-free medical science, applying the multi-level perspective (MLP) framework. The analysis was based on qualitative research, including a desk study (literature review and document analysis), lectures from experts, and nine online focus group sessions with experts on 26 July 2021. These were undertaken as part of an honours project between May and September 2021 to identify barriers, levers, and opportunities for accelerating this transition. The MLP framework identifies required changes at three levels: innovations and new practices (niche level), the current (bio)medical research system (regime level), and larger societal forces (landscape level). All three levels interact in a non-linear fashion. The model enabled us to identify many relevant factors influencing the transition to animal-testing-free medical science and enabled priority setting. Our findings supported the formulation of six "focus areas" to which stakeholders could devote efforts in order to accelerate the transition to animal-testing-free medical science: (1) thorough and translatable new approach methods (NAMs) for human-relevant medical research; (2) open science and sharing data; (3) targeted funding for NAMs; (4) implementing and modernising legislation for NAMs; (5) interdisciplinary education on animal-testing-free medical science; and (6) facilitating a shift in societal views, as this would be of benefit to both animals and humans. It is proposed that these focus areas should be implemented in parallel.

A History of Regulatory Animal Testing: What Can We Learn?

The contemporary pharmaceutical industry is voicing growing concerns about the translatability and reproducibility of animal models. In addition, the usefulness of certain of the required regulatory safety tests in animals is being increasingly questioned. It remains difficult, however, to make the move toward alternative testing methods, not least because of legislative demands. A historical analysis was performed, in order to study how the mandatory animal studies in legislative requirements came about. This article reflects on the role that specific public health disasters played in the creation of (more) regulatory requirements for animal testing. It will show how the regulatory changes prompted by the sulfanilamide elixir disaster in the 1930s and the thalidomide disaster in the early 1960s were based on the belief that extensive animal testing would prevent similar future human health tragedies. As scientists increasingly highlight issues with translatability between non-human animals and humans, the belief that current regulatory requirements ensure safety becomes more difficult to maintain. In addition, it means that some of the regulations now in place require animal tests that do not contribute to the safety of a drug, as shown in a third case study of the court case by Vanda industries against the FDA. We finally argue that regulations should be critically examined and altered where necessary, so that they are no longer a barrier in the transition toward animal-free testing and more human-relevant science.

The Promises of Speeding Up: Changes in Requirements for Animal Studies and Alternatives during COVID-19 Vaccine Approval-A Case Study.

On 21 December 2020, the European Commission granted conditional marketing authorisation for the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine 'Comirnaty', produced by Pfizer/BioNTech. This happened only twelve months after scientists first identified SARS-CoV-2. This stands in stark contrast with the usual ten years needed for vaccine development and approval. Many have suggested that the changes in required animal tests have sped up the development of Comirnaty and other vaccine candidates. However, few have provided an overview of the changes made and interviewed stakeholders on the potential of the pandemic's pressure to achieve a lasting impact. Our research question is: how have stakeholders, including regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies, dealt with requirements concerning in vivo animal models in the expedited approval of vaccine candidates such as 'Comirnaty'? We interviewed key stakeholders at the Dutch national and European levels (n = 11 individuals representing five stakeholder groups in eight interviews and two written statements) and analysed relevant publications, policy documents and other grey literature (n = 171 documents). Interviewees observed significant changes in regulatory procedures and requirements for the 'Comirnaty' vaccine compared to vaccine approval in non-pandemic circumstances. Specifically, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) actively promoted changes by using an accelerated assessment and rolling review procedure for fast conditional marketing authorisation, requiring a reduced number of animal studies and accepting more alternatives, allowing pre-clinical in vivo animal experiments to run in parallel with clinical trials and allowing re-use of historical data from earlier vaccine research. Pharmaceutical companies, in turn, actively anticipated these changes and contributed data from non-animal alternative sources for the development phase. After approval, they could also use in vitro methods only for all batch releases due to the thorough characterisation of the mRNA vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies were optimistic about future change because of societal concerns surrounding the use of animals, adding that, in their view, non-animal alternatives generally obtain faster, better, and cheaper results. Regulators we interviewed were more hesitant to permanently implement these changes as they feared backlash regarding safety issues and uncertainty surrounding adverse effects. Our analysis shows how the EMA shortened its approval timeline in times of crisis by reducing the number of requested animal studies and promoting alternative methods. It also highlights the readiness of pharmaceutical companies to contribute to these changes. More research is warranted to investigate these promising possibilities toward further replacement in science and regulations, contributing to faster vaccine development.

The impact of conducting preclinical systematic reviews on researchers and their research: A mixed method case study.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are cornerstones of evidence-based medicine and have contributed significantly to breakthroughs since the 1980's. However, preclinical SRs remain relatively rare despite their many advantages. Since 2011 the Dutch health funding organisation (ZonMw) has run a grant scheme dedicated to promoting the training, coaching and conduct of preclinical SRs. Our study focuses on this funding scheme to investigate the relevance, effects and benefits of conducting preclinical SRs on researchers and their research. METHODS: We recruited researchers who attended funded preclinical SR workshops and who conducted, are still conducting, or prematurely stopped a SR with funded coaching. We gathered data using online questionnaires followed by semi-structured interviews. Both aimed to explore the impact of conducting a SR on researchers' subsequent work, attitudes, and views about their research field. Data-analysis was performed using Excel and ATLAS.ti. RESULTS: Conducting preclinical SRs had two distinct types of impact. First, the researchers acquired new skills and insights, leading to a change in mindset regarding the quality of animal research. This was mainly seen in the way participants planned, conducted and reported their subsequent animal studies, which were more transparent and of a higher quality than their previous work. Second, participants were eager to share their newly acquired knowledge within their laboratories and to advocate for change within their research teams and fields of interest. In particular, they emphasised the need for preclinical SRs and improved experimental design within preclinical research, promoting these through education and published opinion papers. CONCLUSION: Being trained and coached in the conduct of preclinical SRs appears to be a contributing factor to many beneficial changes which will impact the quality of preclinical research in the long-term. Our findings suggest that this ZonMw funding scheme is helpful in improving the quality and transparency of preclinical research. Similar funding schemes should be encouraged, preferably by a broader group of funders or financers, in the future.