SpringerLink
Log in

Standardized Reporting, Registration, and a Multicenter, Multispecies Approach to Preclinical (Animal) Trials

  • Chapter
Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2013

Part of the book series: Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine ((AUICEM))

  • 2734 Accesses

Abstract

Opinions on the ethics of using animal models of human disease to test novel pharmacological and other therapies are diverse [1]. We make no comment on whether animal experimentation as a concept is ‘ethical’, other than to note that animal (or ‘preclinical’) models of disease are currently considered mandatory in drug development, and only proceed if approved by institutional ethics boards which balance cost (to the animal) and benefit. The only rational approach to this situation is to make the most efficient use of this resource. This notion is codified in the internationally accepted principle of the “3Rs”: Replacement, reduction, and refinement (Table 1) [2].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Weatherall D (2007) Animal research: the debate continues. Lancet 369:1147–1148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Russell WMS, Burch RL (1959) The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen & Co. Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. Angus DC, Mira JP, Vincent JL (2010) Improving clinical trials in the critically ill. Crit Care Med 38:527–532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kochanek PM, Bramlett H, Dietrich WD et al (2011) A novel multicenter preclinical drug screening and biomarker consortium for experimental traumatic brain injury: operation brain trauma therapy. JTrauma 71:S15–S24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fisher MM, Raftos J, McGuinness RT et al (1981) Funnel-web spider (Atrax robustus) antivenom. 2. Early clinical experience. Med J Aust 2:525–526

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Vincent JL (2010) We should abandon randomized controlled trials in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 38:S534–S538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bellomo R, Warrillow SJ, Reade MC (2009) Why we should be wary of single-center trials. Crit Care Med 37:3114–3119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Finfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY et al (2009) Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 360:1283–1297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bellomo R, Cass A, Cole L et al (2009) Intensity of continuous renal-replacement therapy in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 361:1627–1638

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Steinberg KP, Hudson LD, Goodman RB et al (2006) Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids for persistent acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 354:1671–1684

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Festing MF, Altman DG (2002) Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals. ILAR J 43:244–258

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Macleod M (2011) Why animal research needs to improve. Nature 477:511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E et al (2009) Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS One 4:e7824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bebarta V, Luyten D, Heard K (2003) Emergency medicine animal research: does use of randomization and blinding affect the results? Acad Emerg Med 10:684–687

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. McCance I (1995) Assessment of statistical procedures used in papers in the Australian Veterinary Journal. Aust Vet J 72:322–328

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Garner J, Watts S, Parry C, Bird J, Cooper G, Kirkman E (2010) Prolonged permissive hypotensive resuscitation is associated with poor outcome in primary blast injury with controlled hemorrhage. Ann Surg 251:1131–1139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kirkman E, Watts S, Cooper G (2011) Blast injury research models. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 366:144–159

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Reynolds JC, Rittenberger JC, Menegazzi JJ (2007) Drug administration in animal studies of cardiac arrest does not reflect human clinical experience. Resuscitation 74:13–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith III EF, Slivjak MJ, Egan JW, Gagnon R, Arleth AJ, Esser KM (1993) Fluid resuscitation improves survival of endotoxemic or septicemic rats: possible contribution of tumor necrosis factor. Pharmacology 46:254–267

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dyson A, Singer M (2009) Animal models of sepsis: why does preclinical efficacy fail to translate to the clinical setting? Crit Care Med 37:S30–S37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Eichacker PQ, Parent C, Kalil A et al (2002) Risk and the efficacy of antiinflammatory agents: retrospective and confirmatory studies of sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 166:1197–1205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Turnbull IR, Wlzorek JJ, Osborne D, Hotchkiss RS, Coopersmith CM, Buchman TG (2003) Effects of age on mortality and antibiotic efficacy in cecal ligation and puncture. Shock 19:310–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kadioglu A, Cuppone AM, Trappetti C et al (2011) Sex-based differences in susceptibility to respiratory and systemic pneumococcal disease in mice. J Infect Dis 204:1971–1979

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Reade MC, Milbrandt EB, Angus DC (2007) The impact of chronic disease on response to infection: more than just reduced physiological reserve? In: Vincent JL (ed) Yearbook of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine. S**er, Heidelberg, pp 197–207

    Google Scholar 

  25. Haouzi P (2011) Murine models in critical care research. Crit Care Med 39:2290–2293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (1996) Guidance for industry: single dose acute toxicity testing for pharmaceuticals. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/.../Guidances/ucm079270.pdf Accessed Oct 2012

    Google Scholar 

  27. Zbinden G (1993) The concept of multispecies testing in industrial toxicology. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 17:85–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Pusateri AE, Holcomb JB, Kheirabadi BS, Alam HB, Wade CE, Ryan KL (2006) Making sense of the preclinical literature on advanced hemostatic products. J Trauma 60:674–682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sandercock P, Roberts I (2002) Systematic reviews of animal experiments. Lancet 360:586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Korevaar DA, Hooft L, ter Riet G (2011) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Lab Anim 45:225–230

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Sena ES, van der Worp HB, Bath PM, Howells DW, Macleod MR (2010) Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol 8:e1000344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E et al (2007) Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ 334:197

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Sung NS, Crowley Jr WF, Genel M et al (2003) Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA 289:1278–1287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kimmelman J, London AJ (2011) Predicting harms and benefits in translational trials: ethics, evidence, and uncertainty. PLoS Med 8:e1001010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Eastwood D, Findlay L, Poole S et al (2010) Monoclonal antibody TGN1412 trial failure explained by species differences in CD28 expression on CD4+ effector memory T-cells. Br J Pharmacol 161:512–526

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Fisher Jr CJ, Agosti JM, Opal SM et al (1996) Treatment of septic shock with the tumor necrosis factor receptor:Fc fusion protein. The Soluble TNF Receptor Sepsis Study Group. N Engl J Med 334:1697–1702

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Majde JA (2003) Animal models for hemorrhage and resuscitation research. J Trauma 54:S100–S105

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bath PM, Gray LJ, Bath AJ, Buchan A, Miyata T, Green AR (2009) Effects of NXY-059 in experimental stroke: an individual animal meta-analysis. Br J Pharmacol 157:1157–1171

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF et al (2010) CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 63:e1–e37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG (2010) Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 8:e1000412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hooijmans CR, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M (2010) A gold standard publication checklist to improve the quality of animal studies, to fully integrate the Three Rs, and to make systematic reviews more feasible. Altern Lab Anim 38:167–182

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. DeAngelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA et al (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Med J Aust 181:293–294

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ross JS, Mulvey GK, Hines EM, Nissen SE, Krumholz HM (2009) Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Med 6:e1000144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Prayle AP, Hurley MN, Smyth AR (2012) Compliance with mandatory reporting of clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional study. BMJ 344:d7373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Cochrane Injuries Group Albumin Reviewers (1998) Human albumin administration in critically ill patients: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 317:235–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Cook DJ, Reeve BK, Guyatt GH et al (1996) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Resolving discordant meta-analyses. JAMA 275:308–314

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Basso DM, Beattie MS, Bresnahan JC et al (1996) MASCIS evaluation of open field locomotor scores: effects of experience and teamwork on reliability. Multicenter Animal Spinal Cord Injury Study. JNeurotrauma 13:343–359

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Regulation (EC) No1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and Repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93.67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:136:0003:0280:en:PDF Accessed Oct 2012

    Google Scholar 

  49. Dirnagl U, Fisher M (2012) International, multicenter randomized preclinical trials in translational stroke research: it’s time to act. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 32:933–935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bath PM, Macleod MR, Green AR (2009) Emulating multicentre clinical stroke trials: a new paradigm for studying novel interventions in experimental models of stroke. Int J Stroke 4:471–479

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement:

We are grateful to Professor Rinaldo Bellomo both for planting the notion of multicenter, multispecies preclinical trials, and for driving the development of the ANZICS Clinical Trials Group, an effective demonstration of the value of multicenter collaborative research in critical care medicine.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Joint Health Command, Australian Defence Force, Canberra, Australia

    M. C. Reade

  2. Royal Brisbane & Women’s Hospital, University of Queensland, Health Sciences Building, Level 9, 4029, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    M. C. Reade

  3. Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Porton Down, SP4 0JQ, Salisbury, UK

    E. Kirkman

Authors
  1. M. C. Reade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Kirkman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. C. Reade .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Erasme Hospital, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

    Jean-Louis Vincent Prof.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Reade, M.C., Kirkman, E. (2013). Standardized Reporting, Registration, and a Multicenter, Multispecies Approach to Preclinical (Animal) Trials. In: Vincent, JL. (eds) Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2013. Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35109-9_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35109-9_14

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-35108-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-35109-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation