Recovery Animals in Toxicology Studies: An Innovation and Quality Consortium Perspective on Best Practices With Case Study Examples.

The inclusion of recovery animals in nonclinical safety studies that support clinical trials is undertaken with a wide diversity of approaches even while operating under harmonized regulatory guidance. While empirical evaluation of reversibility may enhance the overall nonclinical risk assessment, there are often overlooked opportunities to reduce recovery animal use by leveraging robust scientific and regulatory information. In the past, there were several attempts to benchmark recovery practices; however, recommendations have not been consistently applied across the pharmaceutical industry. A working group (WG) sponsored by the 3Rs Translational and Predictive Sciences Leadership Group of the IQ Consortium conducted a survey of current industry practice related to the evaluation of reversibility/recovery in repeat dose toxicity studies. Discussion among the WG representatives included member company strategies and case studies that highlight challenges and opportunities for continuous refinements in the use of recovery animals. The case studies presented in this paper demonstrate increasing alignment with the Society of Toxicologic Pathology recommendations (2013) towards (1) excluding recovery phase cohorts by default (include only when scientifically justified), (2) minimizing the number of recovery groups (e.g., control and one dose level), and (3) excluding controls in the recovery cohort by leveraging external and/or dosing phase data. Recovery group exclusion and decisions regarding the timing of reversibility evaluation may be driven by indication, modality, and/or other scientific or strategic factors using a weight of evidence approach. The results and recommendations discussed present opportunities to further decrease animal use without impacting the quality of human risk assessment.

Non-Human Primate Husbandry and Impact on Non-Human Primates Health: Outcomes From an IQ DruSafe/3RS Industrial Benchmark Survey.

The presence of health issues (diarrhea, poor body condition) in non-human primates can impact animal welfare, confound toxicity study data, and lead to animal exclusion from studies. A working group cosponsored by DruSafe and 3Rs Translational and Predictive Sciences Leadership Groups of the IQ Consortium conducted a survey to benchmark quarantine, pre-study screening, husbandry, and veterinary care practices and their impact on NHP health. Nineteen companies participated in the survey providing separate responses for studies conducted in-house and at Contract Research Organizations from 3 regions (North America (NA), Europe and Asia) for an aggregate of 33 responses. A majority of responding companies conducted studies at North America CROs (39%) or in-house (36%) using primarily Chinese (33%) or Cambodian (27%) and to a lesser extent Vietnam (18%) or Mauritian (15%) origin NHPs. Forty-Five percent of responses had pre-study health issues (fecal abnormalities, etc.) on ≥ 1 studies with the highest incidence observed in Vietnam origin NHPs (80%). The survey suggested variable pre-screening and quarantine practices across facilities. Husbandry practices including behavioral assessments, environmental enrichment and consistent diets were associated with a lower incidence of health issues. The survey also benchmarked approaches used to diagnose and manage abnormal feces in NHPs and has provided strategies to minimize impact on NHP health. The survey highlighted opportunities for harmonizing screening criteria across industry and for improving tracking and sharing of health screening results, leading to further refinement of NHP veterinary care practices, higher quality studies, and reduced NHP use.