Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:10:39.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Three Rs in the pharmaceutical industry: perspectives of scientists and regulators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

NP Fenwick  and
D Fraser
NP Fenwick*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
D Fraser
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Six drug regulatory reviewers and 11 pharmaceutical industry scientists were interviewed to explore their perspectives on the obstacles and opportunities for greater implementation of the Three Rs (replacement, reduction, refinement) in drug research and development. Participants generally supported the current level of animal use in the pharmaceutical industry and viewed in vitro methods as supporting, but not replacing, the use of animals. Obstacles to greater use of the Three Rs cited by participants included the lack of non-animal alternatives; requirements for statistical validity; reluctance by industry and regulators to depart from established patterns of animal use; the priority of commercial objectives ahead of the Three Rs; and concern that less animal testing could jeopardise human safety. Opportunities identified for the Three Rs included the development of better animal models including genetically modified (GM) animals; pursuit of more basic knowledge, notably drug action on gene expression; re-use of animals; greater use of pilot studies; using sufficient numbers of animals per test to avoid repeating inconclusive studies; regular review of animal data in regulatory requirements; and following the regulatory option of combining segments of reproductive toxicology studies into one study. In some areas, greater implementation of the Three Rs seemed well aligned with industry priorities, for example, phenotypic characterisation of GM animals and validation of alternative methods. In other areas, wider use of the Three Rs may require building consensus on areas of disagreement including the usefulness of death as an endpoint; the suitability of re-using animals; and whether GM animals and the use of pilot studies contribute to reduction.

Keywords

animal welfaredrug developmentin vitro methodspharmaceutical industryThree Rs; toxicology
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , November 2005 , pp. 367 - 377
Copyright
© 2005 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Balls, M 1994 Replacement of animal procedures: alternatives in research, education and testing. Laboratory Animals 28: 193–211Google ScholarPubMed
Balls, M 2002 Future improvements: replacement in vitro methods. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal 43, Suppl: S69-S73Google Scholar
Balls, M, Combes, R, Clothier, R, Festing, M, Halder, M, Jukes, N and Morton, D 2003 Some reflections on the Fourth World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences. New Orleans, Louisiana, 2002. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 6: 131–149CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balls, M, Goldberg, AM, Fentem, JH, Broadhead, CL, Burch, RL, Festing, MFW, Frazier, JM, Hendriksen, CFM, Jennings, M, van der Kamp, MDO, Morton, D, Rowan, AN, Russell, C, Spielmann, H, Stephens, ML, Stokes, WS, Straughan, D, Yager, JD, Zurlo, J and van Zutphen, BFM 1995 The Three Rs: the way forward. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 11. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 23: 838–866CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balls, M, van, Zeller A-M and Halder, ME 2000 Background to the Three Rs declaration of Bologna, as adopted by the Third World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences. Bologna, Italy, 1999. In: Balls, M, van, Zeller A-M and Halder, ME (eds) Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation. Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences pp 17–22. Elsevier Sciences BV: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Broadhead, CL, Betton, G, Combes, R, Damment, S, Everett, D, Garner, C, Godsafe, Z, Healing, G, Heywood, R, Jennings, M, Lumley, C, Oliver, G, Smith, D, Straughan, D, Topham, J, Wallis, R, Wilson, S and Buckley, P 2000 Prospects for reducing and refining the use of dogs in the regulatory toxicity testing of pharmaceuticals. Human & Experimental Toxicology 19: 440–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buehr, M, Hjorth, JP, Hansen, AK and Sandøe, P 2003 Genetically modified laboratory animals — what welfare problems do they face? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 6: 319–338CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burki, K 1995 Prospectives of transgenic animals for the pharmaceutical industry. In: van Zutphen, LFM and van der Meer, M (eds) Welfare Aspects of Transgenic Animals, Proceedings of EC-Workshop pp 48–57. Springer: Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
CCAC 1989 Ethics of Animal Investigation. http://www.ccac.ca/en/CCAC_Programs/Guidelines_Policies/POLICIES/ETHICS.HTM (accessed 22 May 2005)Google Scholar
Clark, DG 1994 Barriers to the acceptance of in vitro alternatives. Toxicology In Vitro 8: 907–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffey, A and Atkinson, P 1996 Concepts and coding. In: Coffey, A and Atkinson, P (eds) Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies pp 26–53. SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, USAGoogle Scholar
Combes, R, Schechtman, LM, Stokes, WS and Blakey, D 2002 The International Symposium on Regulatory Testing and Animal Welfare. Recommendations on best scientific practices for subchronic/chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity testing. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal 43, Suppl: S112-S117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eli Lilly and Company 2004 Animal Care and Use Policy. http://www.lilly.com/about/policies (accessed 17 March 2004)Google Scholar
Festing, MFW 1994 Reduction of animal use: experimental design and quality of experiments. Laboratory Animals 28: 212–221Google ScholarPubMed
Festing, MFW, Baumanns, V, Combes, RD, Halder, M, Hendriksen, CFM, Howard, BR, Lovell, DP, Moore, GJ, Overend, P and Wilson, MS 1998 Reducing the use of laboratory animals in biomedical research: problems and possible solutions. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 29. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 26: 283–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gad, SC and Chengelis, CP 1995 Human health products: drugs and medical devices. In: Chengelis, CP, Holson, JF and Gad, SC (eds) Regulatory Toxicology pp 9–49. Raven Press Ltd: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Glaxo Smith Kline 2001 Care and Ethical Use of Animals. http://science.gsk.com/about/animal-care.htm (accessed 12 August 2004)Google Scholar
Harris, S 2001 Transgenic knock-outs as part of high-throughput, evidence-based target selection and validation strategies. Drug Discovery Today 6: 628–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICCVAM 2005 Overview. http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/about/overview.htm (accessed 27 July 2005)Google Scholar
ICH 1994 Guideline for Industry. Detection of Toxicity to Reproduction for Medicinal Products. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/s5a.pdf (accessed 20 November 2004)Google Scholar
ICH 1997 Guidance for Industry: M3 Nonclinical Safety Studies for the Conduct of Human Clinical Trials for Pharmaceuticals. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/1855fnl.pdf (accessed 19 February 2004)Google Scholar
Jegstrup, I, Thon, R, Hansen, AK and Ritskes Hoitinga, M 2003 Characterization of transgenic mice — a comparison of protocols for welfare evaluation and phenotypic characterization of mice with a suggestion on a future certificate of instruction. Laboratory Animals 37: 1–9Google ScholarPubMed
O'Connor, AM 1997 Barriers to regulatory acceptance. In: van Zutphen, LFM and Balls, M (eds) Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics. Elsevier Science BV: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Olson, H, Graham, B, Robinson, DE, Thomas, K, Monro, A, Kolaja, G, Lilly, P, Sanders, J, Sipes, G, Bracken, W, Dorato, M, Van Deun, K, Smith, P, Berger, B and Heller, A 2000 Concordance of the toxicity of pharmaceuticals in humans and in animals. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 32: 56–67CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfizer 2002 Laboratory Animal Care and Use. http://www.pfizer.com/are/about_public/mn_about_laboratory_use.html (accessed 12 August 2004)Google Scholar
Richmond, J 2002 Refinement, reduction and replacement of animal use for regulatory testing: future improvements and implementation within the regulatory framework. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal 43, Suppl: S63-S68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, DE and MacDonald, JS 2001 Background and framework for ILSI's collaborative evaluation program on alternative models for carcinogenicity assessment. Toxicologic Pathology 29: 13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rollin, BE 2003 Toxicology and new social ethics for animals. Toxicologic Pathology 31: 128–131CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, WMS and Burch, RL 1959 (reprinted 1992) The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Schechtman, LM 2002 The safety assessment process-setting the scene: an FDA perspective. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal 43, Suppl: S5-S10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuppli, CA, Fraser, D and McDonald, M 2004 Expanding the Three Rs to meet new challenges in humane animal experimentation. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 32: 525–532CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snodin, DJ 2002 An EU perspective on the use of in vitro methods in regulatory pharmaceutical toxicology. Toxicology Letters 127: 161–168CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephens, ML, Conlee, K, Alvino, G and Rowan, AN 2002 Possibilities for refinement and reduction: future improvements within regulatory testing. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal 43, Suppl: S74-S79Google Scholar
Stephens, ML, Goldberg, AM and Rowan, AN 2001 The first forty years of the alternatives approach: refining, reducing, and replacing the use of laboratory animals. In: Salem, DJ and Rowan, AN (eds) The State of the Animals: 2001 pp 121–135. Humane Society Press: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Stokes, WS 2002 Humane endpoints for laboratory animals used in regulatory testing. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal 43, Suppl: S31-S38Google Scholar
Tweats, D 2000 A review of reduction and refinement of regulatory toxicity studies for pharmaceuticals. In: Balls, M, van Zeller, A M and Halder, ME (eds) Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation. Proceedings of the Third World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences pp 783–791. Elsevier Science BV: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
United States Food and Drug Administration 1992 Animal Testing. http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-205.html (accessed 26 January 2004)Google Scholar
United States Food and Drug Administration 1996 Guidance for Industry: Single Dose Acute Toxicity Testing for Pharmaceuticals. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/pt1.pdf (accessed 18 February 2004)Google Scholar
World Medical Association 1964 Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm (accessed 13 September 2004)Google Scholar
Zurlo, J 2000 Obstacles to acceptance and implementation of the Three Rs by scientists. In: Balls, M, van, Zeller A-M and Halder, ME (eds) Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation. Proceedings of the Third World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences pp 1383–1387. Elsevier Science BV: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar