van der Ende Jacob, Schallig Henk D F H
Fundación Quina Care Ecuador, Puerto el Carmen de Putumayo 210350, Sucumbíos, Ecuador.
Experimental Parasitology Unit, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Academic Medical Centre at the University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Animals (Basel). 2023 May 16;13(10):1650. doi: 10.3390/ani13101650.
Many different animal models are in use for drug development for leishmaniasis, but a universal model does not exist. There is a plethora of models, and this review assesses their design, quality, and limitations, including the attention paid to animal welfare in the study design and execution. A systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines of available literature after the year 2000 describing animal models for leishmaniasis. The risk of bias was determined using the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk of bias assessment tool. A total of 10,980 records were initially identified after searching the databases PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, and SciELO. Based on the application of predetermined exclusion and inclusion criteria, a total of 203 papers describing 216 animal experiments were available for full analysis. Major reasons for exclusion were a lack of essential study information or appropriate ethical review and approval. Mice (82.8%; an average of 35.9 animals per study) and hamsters (17.1%; an average of 7.4 animals per study) were the most frequently used animals, mostly commercially sourced, in the included studies. All studies lacked a formal sample size analysis. The promastigote stages of or were most frequently used to establish experimental infections (single inoculum). Animal welfare was poorly addressed in all included studies, as the definition of a human end-point or consideration of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) was hardly addressed. Most animals were euthanized at the termination of the experiment. The majority of the studies had an unknown or high risk of bias. Animal experiments for drug development for leishmaniasis mainly poorly designed and of low quality, lack appropriate ethical review, and are deficient in essential information needed to replicate and interpret the study. Importantly, aspects of animal welfare are hardly considered. This underpins the need to better consider and record the details of the study design and animal welfare.
许多不同的动物模型被用于利什曼病的药物研发,但不存在通用模型。模型种类繁多,本综述评估了它们的设计、质量和局限性,包括在研究设计和实施过程中对动物福利的关注。按照系统评价与Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,对2000年后描述利什曼病动物模型的现有文献进行了系统评价。使用实验室动物实验系统评价中心(SYRCLE)的偏倚风险评估工具确定偏倚风险。在搜索PubMed、EMBASE、LILACS和SciELO数据库后,最初共识别出10980条记录。根据预先设定的排除和纳入标准,共有203篇描述216项动物实验的论文可供全面分析。排除的主要原因是缺乏必要的研究信息或适当的伦理审查和批准。在所纳入的研究中,小鼠(82.8%;每项研究平均35.9只动物)和仓鼠(17.1%;每项研究平均7.4只动物)是最常用的动物,大多来自商业渠道。所有研究均缺乏正式的样本量分析。杜氏利什曼原虫或热带利什曼原虫的前鞭毛体阶段最常用于建立实验性感染(单次接种)。在所有纳入的研究中,动物福利问题未得到充分解决,因为几乎没有涉及人类终点的定义或3R原则(替代、减少、优化)的考量。大多数动物在实验结束时被安乐死。大多数研究存在未知或高偏倚风险。用于利什曼病药物研发的动物实验主要设计不佳、质量低下,缺乏适当的伦理审查,且缺乏复制和解释研究所需的基本信息。重要的是,动物福利方面几乎未被考虑。这突出了更好地考虑和记录研究设计细节及动物福利的必要性。