Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Animal Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Studies (APPS) Reporting Guidelines

  • Leading Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Animal pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies are commonly used to provide meaningful preclinical information that can be utilized by the scientific community to conduct first-in-human studies. Poor presentation and interpretation of the data limit study reproducibility, and may result in rejection when the study is submitted to a journal, leading to loss of time and resources at multiple levels. In addition, inconsistencies in reporting the results of animal studies may limit the ability to extrapolate the experimental findings to humans. A few guidelines have been published to make the reporting of animal studies consistent; however, strict implementation of these guidelines by authors, reviewers, and journal editors is still lacking. In an attempt to make the reporting of animal pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies consistent and improve the standard of reporting, this article provides guidelines that can be followed when submitting such studies to a journal. A detailed checklist, based on these guidelines, has been developed that can be used by the authors, reviewers, and editors to check if the required information is included in the manuscript. These guidelines can also be used for designing and performing such studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kilkenny C, Browne W, Cuthill IC, et al. Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines. Br J Pharmacol. 2010;160(7):1577–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature. 2012;490(7419):187–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith AJ, Clutton RE, Lilley E, et al. PREPARE: guidelines for planning animal research and testing. Lab Anim. 2018;52(2):135–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Enserink M. Sloppy reporting on animal studies proves hard to change. Science. 2017;357(6358):1337–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gulin JE, Rocco DM, Garcia-Bournissen F. Quality of reporting and adherence to ARRIVE guidelines in animal studies for chagas disease preclinical drug research: a systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(11):e0004194.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Baker D, Lidster K, Sottomayor A, et al. Two years later: journals are not yet enforcing the ARRIVE guidelines on reporting standards for pre-clinical animal studies. PLoS Biol. 2014;12(1):e1001756.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu Y, Zhao X, Mai Y, et al. Adherence to ARRIVE guidelines in Chinese journal reports on neoplasms in animals. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0154657.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Preparing for submission. ICMJE. 2017. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html#b. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  9. Dykstra K, Mehrotra N, Tornoe CW, et al. Reporting guidelines for population pharmacokinetic analyses. J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;55(8):875–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wade JR, Edholm M, Salmonson T. A guide for reporting the results of population pharmacokinetic analyses: a Swedish perspective. AAPS J. 2005;7(2):45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. ICH. Statistical principles for clinical trials e9. 1998. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E9/Step4/E9_Guideline.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2017.

  12. Parab S, Bhalerao S. Study designs. Int J Ayurveda Res. 2010;1(2):128–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Aarons L, Ogungbenro K. Optimal design of pharmacokinetic studies. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2010;106(3):250–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Robinson K. GLPs and the importance of standard operating procedures. BioPharm International. 2003. http://www.biopharminternational.com/glps-and-importance-standard-operating-procedures. Accessed 26 Sept 2017.

  15. Grabowski T, Marczak M, Muszynski M, et al. Harmonization of rules in GLP and pharmacokinetic analysis: regulatory view. Bioanalysis. 2012;4(4):417–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. US FDA. Comparison chart of FDA and EPA good laboratory practice (GLP) regulations and the OECD principles of GLP. 2004. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ICECI/EnforcementActions/BioresearchMonitoring/UCM133724.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2016.

  17. NC3Rs. The 3Rs. The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/the-3rs. Accessed 10 Nov 2017.

  18. Mojiminiyi FB, Anibogu CN, Sofola AO, Adigun SA. Endothelium-dependent and -independent relaxations in aortic rings obtained from hypertensive hooded (Aguti) rats. Niger J Physiol Sci. 2007;22(1–2):109–16.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kurle CM. Interpreting temporal variation in omnivore foraging ecology via stable isotope modelling. Funct Ecol. 2009;23:733–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. ICH. Guidance for industry. S6 addendum to preclinical safety evaluation of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals. 2012. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/…/Guidances/UCM194490.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

  21. OECD. Test No. 417: toxicokinetics. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals. 2010. http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/environment/test-no-417-toxicokinetics_9789264070882-en#.WQ92YkWGPcs. Accessed 8 May 2016.

  22. EC. Commission implementing decision of 14 November 2012 establishing a common format for the submission of the information pursuant to Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/Unofficial%20Consolidated%20version.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2016.

  23. Dalgaard L. Comparison of minipig, dog, monkey and human drug metabolism and disposition. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2015;74:80–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Vugmeyster Y, Xu X, Theil FP, et al. Pharmacokinetics and toxicology of therapeutic proteins: advances and challenges. World J Biol Chem. 2012;3(4):73–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. EC. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes 2010. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2010:276:FULL&from=EN. Accessed 8 May 2016.

  26. EMA. Guideline on regulatory acceptance of 3R (replacement, 6 reduction, refinement) testing approaches. 2014. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2014/10/WC500174977.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2010.

  27. Baker DG, Lipman NS. Factors that can influence animal research. In: Fox J, Anderson L, Otto G, Pritchett-Corning K, Whary M, editors. Laboratory animal medicine, 3rd ed. London: Academic; 2015. p. 1441–95.

  28. Bjorkholm B, Bok CM, Lundin A, et al. Intestinal microbiota regulate xenobiotic metabolism in the liver. PLoS One. 2009;4(9):e6958.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuno T, Hirayama-Kurogi M, Ito S, et al. Effect of intestinal flora on protein expression of drug-metabolizing enzymes and transporters in the liver and kidney of germ-free and antibiotics-treated mice. Mol Pharm. 2016;13(8):2691–701.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hoover JL, Singley CM, Elefante P, et al. Reducing antibacterial development risk for GSK1322322 by exploring potential human dose regimens in nonclinical efficacy studies using immunocompetent rats. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(11):e00959-17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Barbosa ASAA, Diório SM, Pedrini SCB, et al. The relevance of nutritional status and histopathological findings on the infectious process of BALB/c mice inoculated with Lacazia loboi. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2015;57(5):421–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Chow SC, Liu JP. Experimental design principles for animal studies in pharmaceutical development. In: Chow SC, Liu JP, editors. Design and analysis of animal studies in pharmaceutical development. New York: Dekker; 1998.

  33. Law B, Temesi D. The design of pharmacokinetic studies to support drug discovery: the selection of the optimum number of animals for a study. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2003;28(3):233–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Charan J, Kantharia ND. How to calculate sample size in animal studies? J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2013;4(4):303–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Fitts DA. Minimizing animal numbers: the variable-criteria sequential stopping rule. Comp Med. 2011;61(3):206–18.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Workman P, Aboagye EO, Balkwill F, et al. Guidelines for the welfare and use of animals in cancer research. Br J Cancer. 2010;102(11):1555–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. EMA. Reflection paper on methodological issues in confirmatory clinical trials planned with an adaptive design. 2007. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003616.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

  38. Heine HS, Shadomy SV, Boyer AE, et al. Evaluation of combination drug therapy for treatment of antibiotic-resistant inhalation anthrax in a murine model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(9):e00788-17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Miranda ML, Balarini MM, Balthazar DS, et al. Ivabradine attenuates the microcirculatory derangements evoked by experimental sepsis. Anesthesiology. 2017;126(1):140–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. US FDA. Guidance for industry. Content and format of effectiveness and target animal safety technical sections and final study reports for submission to the division of therapeutic drugs for non-food animals. 2001. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM052645.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

  41. US FDA. Product development under the animal rule. Guidance for Industry. 2015. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm399217.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2016.

  42. US FDA. Guidance for industry. Protocol development guideline for clinical effectiveness and target animal safety trials. 2001. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/ucm052372.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

  43. EMA. Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence. 2010. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2010/01/WC500070039.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2016.

  44. US FDA. Guidance for industry. Bioequivalence studies with pharmacokinetic endpoints for drugs submitted under an ANDA. 2013. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm377465.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

  45. van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, et al. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Med. 2010;7(3):e1000245.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. OECD. OECD series on principles of GLP and compliance monitoring. 1999. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?doclanguage=en&cote=env/jm/mono(99)22. Accessed 8 May 2017.

  47. US FDA. Guidance for industry and other stakeholders toxicological principles for the safety assessment of food ingredients. 2007. https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/IngredientsAdditivesGRASPackaging/ucm2006826.htm. Accessed 8 May 2017.

  48. Turner PV, Brabb T, Pekow C, et al. Administration of substances to laboratory animals: routes of administration and factors to consider. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2011;50(5):600–13.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. EMA. Routes of administration controlled vocabulary. 2005. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002730.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

  50. US FDA. Guidance for industry. Population pharmacokinetics. 1999. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/UCM072137.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

  51. NC3Rs. Blood sampling. 2017. https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/3rs-resources/blood-sampling. Accessed 8 May 2017.

  52. Grabowski T, Marczak M, Jaroszewski JJ, et al. Comparison of bioequivalence study regulatory requirements for human and veterinary drugs. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2012;64(2):233–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. US FDA. Guidance for industry. Exposure–response relationships—study design, data analysis, and regulatory applications. 2003. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm072109.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

  54. Vermeulen E, van den Anker JN, Della Pasqua O, et al. How to optimise drug study design: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics studies introduced to paediatricians. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2017;69(4):439–47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. EMA. Guideline on bioanalytical method validation. 2011. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2011/08/WC500109686.pdf. Accessed 16 May 2017.

  56. US FDA. Guidance for industry: Bioanalytical method validation. 2013. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm368107.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

  57. EMA. Guideline on reporting the results of population pharmacokinetic analyses. 2007. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003067.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2017.

  58. EMA. Guideline on non-clinical local tolerance testing of medicinal products. 2015. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2015/11/WC500197321.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

  59. Benet LZ, Zia-Amirhosseini P. Basic principles of pharmacokinetics. Toxicol Pathol. 1995;23(2):115–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Wang YM, Wang J, Hon YY, et al. Evaluating and reporting the immunogenicity impacts for biological products—a clinical pharmacology perspective. AAPS J. 2016;18(2):395–403.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors. ICMJE. 2017. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  62. Springer. Reference styles. Springer. 2017. https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/book-authors-editors/manuscript-preparation/5636. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  63. Knight A. The beginning of the end for chimpanzee experiments? Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2008;3:16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Guillen J. Laboratory animals: regulations and recommendations for global collaborative research. Cambridge: Academic; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  65. European Commission. Ban on animal testing. 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/cosmetics/animal-testing_en. Accessed 1 May 2018.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jasbir Singh and Fawzy Elbarbry are joint first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Adis International Limited, 5 The Warehouse Way, Northcote, 0627, Auckland, New Zealand

    Jasbir Singh

  2. School of Pharmacy, Pacific University, Hillsboro, OR, USA

    Fawzy Elbarbry

  3. West China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    Ke Lan

  4. Polpharma Biologics, Gdański Park Naukowo-Technologiczny, ul. Trzy lipy 3, Gdańsk, Poland

    Tomasz Grabowski

Authors
  1. Jasbir Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fawzy Elbarbry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ke Lan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tomasz Grabowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jasbir Singh.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No external source of funding was used to prepare this article.

Conflict of interest

Jasbir Singh is the Editor-in-Chief of European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics and a salaried employee of Adis International Limited. He has no other conflicts of interest to declare. Fawzy Elbarbry, Ke Lan, and Tomasz Grabowski have no conflicts of interest to declare. The Editor in Chief of the European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics was not involved in the selection of peer reviewers for the manuscript nor any of the subsequent editorial decisions.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singh, J., Elbarbry, F., Lan, K. et al. Animal Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Studies (APPS) Reporting Guidelines. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 43, 483–494 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13318-018-0498-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13318-018-0498-2

Search

Navigation