Preclinical screening for antidepressant activity - shifting focus away from the Forced Swim Test to the use of translational biomarkers.

Depression is the world's predominant mental health problem and a leading cause of disability. Neuropharmacological research has not yet advanced treatments to sufficiently meet clinical need, largely due to the failure of animal models to predict clinical efficacy. The forced swim test (FST) has been extensively used in the field of antidepressant research but has been under scrutiny due to its perceived severity to animals. Any use of animals in experiments and testing must have a scientific or regulatory purpose and researchers need to ensure that there is no scientifically valid alternative. However, regulatory requirements have been incorrectly cited as a reason to support the use of the FST. More research is required on tests that do not involve stressing animals as replacements for the FST. Non-behavioural neurochemical measures might provide a means to advance neuropharmacological developments while reducing animal suffering. For example, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) may be promising.

Toxicology Paradise: Sorting Out Adverse and Non-adverse Findings in Animal Toxicity Studies.

A challenge for all toxicologists is defining what study findings are actually adverse versus non-adverse in animal toxicity studies, and which ones are relevant for generating a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) to assess human risk. This article presents views on this challenge presented by toxicologists, toxicologic pathologists, and regulatory reviewers at the 2019 annual meeting of the American College of Toxicology during a workshop entitled "Toxicology Paradise: Sorting Out Adverse and Non-adverse Findings." The speakers noted that setting a NOAEL is not always straightforward, not only for small molecules but also for biopharmaceuticals, and that a "weight of evidence" approach often is more useful than a rigid threshold-setting algorithm. Regulators from the US Food and Drug Administration and European Union told how assessment of adverse nonclinical findings is undertaken to allow clinical studies to commence and drug marketing approvals to succeed, along with the process that allows successful dialogs with regulators. Nonclinical case studies of findings judged to be adverse versus non-adverse were presented in relation to the many factors that might halt or delay clinical development. The process of defining adverse findings and the NOAEL in final study reports was discussed, as well as who should be involved in the process.