Systematic Reviews of Animal Experiments Demonstrate Poor Human Clinical and Toxicological Utility

The assumption that animal models are reasonably predictive of human outcomes provides the basis for their widespread use in toxicity testing and in biomedical research aimed at developing cures for human diseases. To investigate the validity of this assumption, the comprehensive Scopus biomedical bibliographic databases were searched for published systematic reviews of the human clinical or toxicological utility of animal experiments. In 20 reviews in which clinical utility was examined, the authors concluded that animal models were either significantly useful in contributing to the development of clinical interventions, or were substantially consistent with clinical outcomes, in only two cases, one of which was contentious. These included reviews of the clinical utility of experiments expected by ethics committees to lead to medical advances, of highly-cited experiments published in major journals, and of chimpanzee experiments — those involving the species considered most likely to be predictive of human outcomes. Seven additional reviews failed to clearly demonstrate utility in predicting human toxicological outcomes, such as carcinogenicity and teratogenicity. Consequently, animal data may not generally be assumed to be substantially useful for these purposes. Possible causes include interspecies differences, the distortion of outcomes arising from experimental environments and protocols, and the poor methodological quality of many animal experiments, which was evident in at least 11 reviews. No reviews existed in which the majority of animal experiments were of good methodological quality. Whilst the effects of some of these problems might be minimised with concerted effort (given their widespread prevalence), the limitations resulting from interspecies differences are likely to be technically and theoretically impossible to overcome. Non-animal models are generally required to pass formal scientific validation prior to their regulatory acceptance. In contrast, animal models are simply assumed to be predictive of human outcomes. These results demonstrate the invalidity of such assumptions. The consistent application of formal validation studies to all test models is clearly warranted, regardless of their animal, non-animal, historical, contemporary or possible future status. Likely benefits would include, the greater selection of models truly predictive of human outcomes, increased safety of people exposed to chemicals that have passed toxicity tests, increased efficiency during the development of human pharmaceuticals and other therapeutic interventions, and decreased wastage of animal, personnel and financial resources. The poor human clinical and toxicological utility of most animal models for which data exists, in conjunction with their generally substantial animal welfare and economic costs, justify a ban on animal models lacking scientific data clearly establishing their human predictivity or utility

Methods for reliability and uncertainty assessment and for applicability evaluations of classification- and regression-based QSARs

This article provides an overview of methods for reliability assessment of quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) models in the context of regulatory acceptance of human health and environmental QSARs. Useful diagnostic tools and data analytical approaches are highlighted and exemplified. Particular emphasis is given to the question of how to define the applicability borders of a QSAR and how to estimate parameter and prediction uncertainty. The article ends with a discussion regarding QSAR acceptability criteria. This discussion contains a list of recommended acceptability criteria, and we give reference values for important QSAR performance statistics. Finally, we emphasize that rigorous and independent validation of QSARs is an essential step toward their regulatory acceptance and implementation. Key words: QSAR acceptability criteria, QSAR applicability domain, QSAR reliability, QSAR uncertainty estimation, QSAR validation

Bridging the technological divide: Stigmas and challenges with technology in digital brain health studies of older adults

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased adoption of remote assessments in clinical research. However, longstanding stereotypes persist regarding older adults\u27 technology familiarity and their willingness to participate in technology-enabled remote studies. We examined the validity of these stereotypes using a novel technology familiarity assessment

Subcellular localization of type-I thionins in the endosperms of wheat and barley.

Thionins are cysteine-rich polypeptides of about 5,000 Da. Localization at the subcellular level of type I endosperm thionins has been carried out by immunogold labeling, using an antibody that recognizes type I thionin variants. In developing wheat and barley caryopses, sectioned at different times between 13 and 24 days after flowering, this type of thionins was only detected around protein bodies from cells of the starchy endosperm, using light microscopy. Electron microscopy revealed that these proteins were located in electron-dense spheroids in the periphery of protein bodies, at the earlier stages, whereas later the label appeared also as a thin layer around these organelles

Meeting Report: Validation of Toxicogenomics-Based Test Systems: ECVAM–ICCVAM/NICEATM Considerations for Regulatory Use

This is the report of the first workshop “Validation of Toxicogenomics-Based Test Systems” held 11–12 December 2003 in Ispra, Italy. The workshop was hosted by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) and organized jointly by ECVAM, the U.S. Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM). The primary aim of the workshop was for participants to discuss and define principles applicable to the validation of toxicogenomics platforms as well as validation of specific toxicologic test methods that incorporate toxicogenomics technologies. The workshop was viewed as an opportunity for initiating a dialogue between technologic experts, regulators, and the principal validation bodies and for identifying those factors to which the validation process would be applicable. It was felt that to do so now, as the technology is evolving and associated challenges are identified, would be a basis for the future validation of the technology when it reaches the appropriate stage. Because of the complexity of the issue, different aspects of the validation of toxicogenomics-based test methods were covered. The three focus areas include a) biologic validation of toxicogenomics-based test methods for regulatory decision making, b) technical and bioinformatics aspects related to validation, and c) validation issues as they relate to regulatory acceptance and use of toxicogenomics-based test methods. In this report we summarize the discussions and describe in detail the recommendations for future direction and priorities

The Three Rs: The Way Forward

This is the report of the eleventh of a series of workshops organised by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), which was established in 1991 by the European Commission. ECVAM\u27s main goal, as defined in 1993 by its Scientific Advisory Committee, is to promote the scientific and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods which are of importance to the biosciences and which reduce, refine or replace the use of laboratory animals. One of the first priorities set by ECVAM was the implementation of procedures which would enable it to become well-informed about the state-of-the-art of non-animal test development and validation. and the potential for the possible incorporation of replacement alternative tests into regulatory procedures. It was decided that this would be best achieved by the organisation of ECVAM workshops on specific topics, at which small groups of invited experts would review the current status of various types of in vitro tests and their potential uses, and make recommendations about the best ways forward

Women’s experiences of maternity care in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic: A follow-up systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis

Background: Maternity care services in the United Kingdom have undergone drastic changes due to pandemic-related restrictions. Prior research has shown maternity care during the pandemic was negatively experienced by women and led to poor physical and mental health outcomes in pregnancy. A synthesis is required of published research on women’s experiences of maternity care during the latter half of the COVID-19 pandemic. Aim: To update of a previous systematic review of maternity care experiences during the pandemic to June 2021, exploring experiences of maternity care specifically within the United Kingdom and how they may have changed, in order to inform future maternity services. Methods: Systematic review of qualitative literature was conducted using comprehensive searches of five electronic databases and the Cochrane COVID Study Register, published between 1 June 2021 and 13 October 2022, and further updated to 30 September 2023. Thematic synthesis was utilised for data synthesis. Findings: Of 21,860 records identified, 27 studies were identified for inclusion. Findings included 14 descriptive themes across the five core concepts: (1)Care-seeking and experience; (2)Virtual care; (3)Self-monitoring; (4)COVID-19 vaccination; (5)Ethical future of maternity care. Discussion: Our findings in the UK are consistent with those globally, and extend those of the previous systematic review, particularly about women’s perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. Conclusion: Our findings suggest the following are important to women for future maternity care: personalisation and inclusiveness; clear and evidence-based communication to facilitate informed decision-making; and achieving balance between social commitments and time spent settling into motherhood

Patient-directed self-management of pain (PaDSMaP) compared to treatment as usual following total knee replacement; a randomised controlled trial

Background Self-administration of medicines by patients whilst in hospital is being increasingly promoted despite little evidence to show the risks and benefits. Pain control after total knee replacement (TKR) is known to be poor. The aim of the study was to determine if patients operated on with a TKR who self-medicate their oral analgesics in the immediate post-operative period have better pain control than those who receive their pain control by nurse-led drug rounds (Treatment as Usual (TAU)). Methods A prospective, parallel design, open-label, randomised controlled trial comparing pain control in patient-directed self-management of pain (PaDSMaP) with nurse control of oral analgesia (TAU) after a TKR. Between July 2011 and March 2013, 144 self-medicating adults were recruited at a secondary care teaching hospital in the UK. TAU patients (n = 71) were given medications by a nurse after their TKR. PaDSMaP patients (n = 73) took oral medications for analgesia and co-morbidities after two 20 min training sessions reinforced with four booklets. Primary outcome was pain (100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS)) at 3 days following TKR surgery or at discharge (whichever came soonest). Seven patients did not undergo surgery for reasons unrelated to the study and were excluded from the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Results ITT analysis did not detect any significant differences between the two groups’ pain scores. A per protocol (but underpowered) analysis of the 60% of patients able to self-medicate found reduced pain compared to the TAU group at day 3/discharge, (VAS -9.9 mm, 95% CI -18.7, − 1.1). One patient in the self-medicating group over-medicated but suffered no harm. Conclusion Self-medicating patients did not have better (lower) pain scores compared to the nurse-managed patients following TKR. This cohort of patients were elderly with multiple co-morbidities and may not be the ideal target group for self-medication