Veterinary Conduct and Animal Welfare

This paper is a lecture presented to the same Association but fifteen years later: the 131st Annual Congress in 1984. This second presentation contemplates two points: First, it tries to indicate how this criticism has gradually emerged and a historical outline is put forth of the development of veterinary medicine, a differentiation being made between a mythical, a technical, and a critical approach. Second, a discussion of how veterinarians have to associate themselves with this criticism in their professional conduct is presented. This discussion is necessary for two reasons. Veterinarians have increasingly become aware that they bear a professional responsibility not only for animal health but also for animal welfare; and, veterinarians are expected to give their views in concrete situations

Estimating the NIH Efficient Frontier

Background: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is among the world’s largest investors in biomedical research, with a mandate to: “…lengthen life, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.” Its funding decisions have been criticized as insufficiently focused on disease burden. We hypothesize that modern portfolio theory can create a closer link between basic research and outcome, and offer insight into basic-science related improvements in public health. We propose portfolio theory as a systematic framework for making biomedical funding allocation decisions–one that is directly tied to the risk/reward trade-off of burden-of-disease outcomes. Methods and Findings: Using data from 1965 to 2007, we provide estimates of the NIH “efficient frontier”, the set of funding allocations across 7 groups of disease-oriented NIH institutes that yield the greatest expected return on investment for a given level of risk, where return on investment is measured by subsequent impact on U.S. years of life lost (YLL). The results suggest that NIH may be actively managing its research risk, given that the volatility of its current allocation is 17% less than that of an equal-allocation portfolio with similar expected returns. The estimated efficient frontier suggests that further improvements in expected return (89% to 119% vs. current) or reduction in risk (22% to 35% vs. current) are available holding risk or expected return, respectively, constant, and that 28% to 89% greater decrease in average years-of-life-lost per unit risk may be achievable. However, these results also reflect the imprecision of YLL as a measure of disease burden, the noisy statistical link between basic research and YLL, and other known limitations of portfolio theory itself. Conclusions: Our analysis is intended to serve as a proof-of-concept and starting point for applying quantitative methods to allocating biomedical research funding that are objective, systematic, transparent, repeatable, and expressly designed to reduce the burden of disease. By approaching funding decisions in a more analytical fashion, it may be possible to improve their ultimate outcomes while reducing unintended consequences

Retrospective harm benefit analysis of pre-clinical animal research for six treatment interventions

The harm benefit analysis (HBA) is the cornerstone of animal research regulation and is considered to be a key ethical safeguard for animals. The HBA involves weighing the anticipated benefits of animal research against its predicted harms to animals but there are doubts about how objective and accountable this process is.i. To explore the harms to animals involved in pre-clinical animal studies and to assess these against the benefits for humans accruing from these studies; ii. To test the feasibility of conducting this type of retrospective HBA.Data on harms were systematically extracted from a sample of pre-clinical animal studies whose clinical relevance had already been investigated by comparing systematic reviews of the animal studies with systematic reviews of human studies for the same interventions (antifibrinolytics for haemorrhage, bisphosphonates for osteoporosis, corticosteroids for brain injury, Tirilazad for stroke, antenatal corticosteroids for neonatal respiratory distress and thrombolytics for stroke). Clinical relevance was also explored in terms of current clinical practice. Harms were categorised for severity using an expert panel. The quality of the research and its impact were considered. Bateson's Cube was used to conduct the HBA.The most common assessment of animal harms by the expert panel was 'severe'. Reported use of analgesia was rare and some animals (including most neonates) endured significant procedures with no, or only light, anaesthesia reported. Some animals suffered iatrogenic harms. Many were kept alive for long periods post-experimentally but only 1% of studies reported post-operative care. A third of studies reported that some animals died prior to endpoints. All the studies were of poor quality. Having weighed the actual harms to animals against the actual clinical benefits accruing from these studies, and taking into account the quality of the research and its impact, less than 7% of the studies were permissible according to Bateson's Cube: only the moderate bisphosphonate studies appeared to minimise harms to animals whilst being associated with benefit for humans.This is the first time the accountability of the HBA has been systematically explored across a range of pre-clinical animal studies. The regulatory systems in place when these studies were conducted failed to safeguard animals from severe suffering or to ensure that only beneficial, scientifically rigorous research was conducted. Our findings indicate a pressing need to: i. review regulations, particularly those that permit animals to suffer severe harms; ii. reform the processes of prospectively assessing pre-clinical animal studies to make them fit for purpose; and iii. systematically evaluate the benefits of pre-clinical animal research to permit a more realistic assessment of its likely future benefits

A systematic evaluation of payback of publicly funded health and health services research in Hong Kong

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Health and Health Services Research Fund (HHSRF) is dedicated to support research related to all aspects of health and health services in Hong Kong. We evaluated the fund's outcomes and explored factors associated with the translation of research findings to changes in health policy and provider behaviour.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A locally suitable questionnaire was developed based on the "payback" evaluation framework and was sent to principal investigators of the completed research projects supported by the fund since 1993. Research "payback" in six outcome areas was surveyed, namely knowledge production, use of research in the research system, use of research project findings in health system policy/decision making, application of the research findings through changed behaviour, factors influencing the utilization of research, and health/health service/economic benefits.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Principal investigators of 178 of 205 (87%) completed research projects returned the questionnaire. Investigators reported research publications in 86.5% (mean = 5.4 publications per project), career advancement 34.3%, acquisition of higher qualifications 38.2%, use of results in policy making 35.4%, changed behaviour in light of findings 49.4%, evidence of health service benefit 42.1% and generated subsequent research in 44.9% of the projects. Payback outcomes were positively associated with the amount of funding awarded. Multivariate analysis found participation of investigators in policy committees and liaison with potential users were significantly associated with reported health service benefit (odds ratio [OR]_{participation}= 2.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28–6.40; OR_liaison= 2.03, 95% CI 1.05–3.91), policy and decision-making (OR_{participation}= 10.53, 95% CI 4.13–26.81; OR_liaison= 2.52, 95% CI 1.20–5.28), and change in behavior (OR_{participation}= 3.67, 95% CI 1.53–8.81).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The HHSRF has produced substantial outcomes and compared favourably with similar health research funds in other developed economies. Further studies are needed to better understand the factors and pathways associated with the translation of research findings into practice.</p

Right-to-left shunt with hypoxemia in pulmonary hypertension

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Hypoxemia is common in pulmonary hypertension (PH) and may be partly related to ventilation/perfusion mismatch, low diffusion capacity, low cardiac output, and/or right-to-left (RL) shunting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>To determine whether true RL shunting causing hypoxemia is caused by intracardiac shunting, as classically considered, a retrospective single center study was conducted in consecutive patients with precapillary PH, with hypoxemia at rest (PaO₂< 10 kPa), shunt fraction (Qs/Qt) greater than 5%, elevated alveolar-arterial difference of PO₂(AaPO₂), and with transthoracic contrast echocardiography performed within 3 months.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among 263 patients with precapillary PH, 34 patients were included: pulmonary arterial hypertension, 21%; PH associated with lung disease, 47% (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 23%; interstitial lung disease, 9%; other, 15%); chronic thromboembolic PH, 26%; miscellaneous causes, 6%. Mean pulmonary artery pressure, cardiac index, and pulmonary vascular resistance were 45.8 ± 10.8 mmHg, 2.2 ± 0.6 L/min/m², and 469 ± 275 dyn.s.cm^-5, respectively. PaO₂in room air was 6.8 ± 1.3 kPa. Qs/Qt was 10.2 ± 4.2%. AaPO₂under 100% oxygen was 32.5 ± 12.4 kPa. Positive contrast was present at transthoracic contrast echocardiography in 6/34 (18%) of patients, including only 4/34 (12%) with intracardiac RL shunting. Qs/Qt did not correlate with hemodynamic parameters. Patients' characteristics did not differ according to the result of contrast echocardiography.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>When present in patients with precapillary PH, RL shunting is usually not related to reopening of patent <it>foramen ovale</it>, whatever the etiology of PH.</p