UK Uses Fewer Animals In Toxicology Testing
10 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // August 2nd, 2010 // 9:18 am
There was a 13 percent drop in the number of animals used for toxicology testing last year in the UK - to slightly more than 672,000 - although overall usage is up since the beginning of the decade, according to OutsourcingPharma. For instance, about 549,000 animals were used in experiments in 2000 and the number rose steadily to roughly 769,000 in 2008 before declining.
Over the past 10 years, more than 3 million mice were chosen for testing safety, quality control, efficacy and ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination/excretion), making them far and away the most popular creatures, followed by rats at 1.83 million; 266,000-plus rabbits; 400,000 or so fish; 150,000 fowl; 97,000 beagles; 53,000 monkeys; roughly 27,000 pigs and about 22,000 cattle.
Last year, however, the number of farm animals, carnivores and monkeys, in particular, used for testing had declined markedly from previous years. The topic is of interest, of course, because of ongoing concerns about the use of animals in testing, particularly as animal-rights groups step up their activism (see this). You can look here to draw some comparisons yourself.
pharmavet
This good news. See earlier article about beagles rescued from contract lab in July.
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100709/UPDATES01/307090006/30-rescued-beagles-up-for-adoption-at-St-Hubert-s-in-Madison
goldilocks
Does the decrease in testing on larger animals have any correlation to the number of drugs reaching phase I clinical trials?
Astrid
This sounds like good news to a person who cares about animal rights, and I hope it is also good news for drug skeptics.
Salmon
Large animal testing figure minimally into drug development.
There are no requirements for mechanism of action (pharmacology) studies in animals. Although some such testing may occur if needed for proof of concept. The only requirements for animal testing are for toxicology purposes and the duration of testing progresses with the length of the studies to be performed in humans. So if the human studies are 1 day you need 1 day of exposure in a few animals from 2 different species. 1 week of human exposure means 1 week of animal data, 1 month equals 1 month etc. up until phase III human safety studies where you need 9 months of data in an animal.
Studies are typically done in two animal species, one rodent and one non rodent. So you typically have a study in rats and one other species. Rabbits are typically used for embryofetal and reproductive toxicity.
Studies typically don’t include large numbers of animals and in the shorter duration studies 3 animals of each sex at various dosages and for a control group is common. Larger numbers are needed in longer duration studies to account for drop outs etc. but there still aren’t huge numbers.
You also want to use small animals as compared with larger animals (cost, easier to handle, less space, better described in the animal literature, genetically more homogenous, and easier to match with regard to age, etc. when litter mates are used.
Dogs, cats, monkeys etc may be used but only when there is a specific reason to with dogs being the most commonly used for cardiovascular testing. Otherwise there are too many disadvantages and large animals are avoided.
I don’t know why so such a large percentage of large animals is being reported here it certainly doesn’t match what is typical in the pharmaceutical industry for human drugs. My guess is based on the species being reported (cattle, fish, fowl) it’s likely for the development of drugs for use in farm/food animals. The only explanation I than think of for such a high percentage of monkeys is psychological testing and not so much for drug development.
Salmon
pharmavet
Salmon, pharmaceutical research is only a portion of animal research in toto. Many more animals are utilized in elucidating mechanisms of disease. I never did a total count, but I estimate that I probably used over 1000 rats in my PhD research alone. Beagles have been used to elucidate the pathogenesis of many human-related disorders. One example is the classic smoking beagle experiments that linked cigarette smoking to lung cancer. See link.
http://tobaccofreedom.org/issues/documents/landman/beagles/
harpy
why beagles? any particular reason?
Nathan
Are these numbers the total number of animals SACRIFICED for testing or USED for testing? There is a significant differance, particularly for large animals. In my pharma experience it is common to “re-use” beagles and monkeys for many tests. As long as the animal remains healthy, it is not sacrificed. (this is particularly true for PK and efficacy studies — not so much for toxicology studies I presume).
Harpy, I don’t know the reason for beagles - but it is universally true in the industry. I’m assuming that it has something to do with wanting a consistent species for comparisons between various studies. (we do the same with other species - we almost universally use sprague-dalley mice and brown norway rats)
Dogs are also sometimes adopted after thier utility in the testing is complete. (often by people involved in the pharma research)
Nathan
Oh, woops. I just re-read the title. I guess these are the number of animals used exclusively for tox studies — it doesn’t include efficacy, PK, and mechanistic studies. (at least, I assume not)
pharmavet
Nathan is correct. In my grad school pharmacology course we were assigned a single dog at the beginning of the semester, and were expected to not only be exacting in our experiments but also to treat the animal in a careful enough fashion to keep it alive for the entirety of the semester through 5-6 different experiments. The goal was to finish the semester with the dog in good enough condition to make it adoptable. With proper attention to technique, we were successful in this endeavor the vast majority of the time.
harpy
thanks Nathan. in addition to consistency in the factors you mentioned maybe their size and disposition influenced the choice, too. I also find it interesting that you refer to them being “sacrificed,” as their death is for a greater purpose. it’s fitting, in a way.