Nathalie Percie du Sert1, Anthony M Holmes1, Rob Wallis1, Paul Lr Andrews1. 1. The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, London, UKDivision of Biomedical Sciences, St George's University of London, London, UKPfizer Drug Safety Research and Development, Groton, CT, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Emesis is a multi-system reflex, which is usually investigated using in vivo models. The aim of the study is to compare the response induced by emetic compounds across species and investigate whether dogs, ferrets and rats are all similarly predictive of humans. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: A systematic review was carried out and relevant publications were identified from PubMed. The search was restricted to four species (human, dog, ferret, rat) and ten compounds representative of various mechanisms of emesis induction (apomorphine, cisplatin, cholecystokinin octapeptide, copper sulphate, cyclophosphamide, ipecacuanha, lithium chloride, morphine, nicotine, rolipram). KEY RESULTS: 1046 publications were reviewed, and 311 were included, the main reason for exclusion was the lack of quantitative data. Emetic or pica data were extracted as incidence, intensity or latency. All three animal species identified emetic liability but interspecies differences for dose sensitivity were detected. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATION: These results suggest that emetic liability can be reliably identified in a common laboratory species such as the rat. However, to evaluate the characteristics of the emetic response, no animal species is a universal predictor of emetic liability and the choice of species should be an informed decision based on the type of compound investigated. Limitations relating to the conduct and reporting of emesis studies were identified, the main ones being the lack of comparable outcome measures between human and animal data, and the limited availability of human data in the public domain.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Emesis is a multi-system reflex, which is usually investigated using in vivo models. The aim of the study is to compare the response induced by emetic compounds across species and investigate whether dogs, ferrets and rats are all similarly predictive of humans. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: A systematic review was carried out and relevant publications were identified from PubMed. The search was restricted to four species (human, dog, ferret, rat) and ten compounds representative of various mechanisms of emesis induction (apomorphine, cisplatin, cholecystokinin octapeptide, copper sulphate, cyclophosphamide, ipecacuanha, lithium chloride, morphine, nicotine, rolipram). KEY RESULTS: 1046 publications were reviewed, and 311 were included, the main reason for exclusion was the lack of quantitative data. Emetic or pica data were extracted as incidence, intensity or latency. All three animal species identified emetic liability but interspecies differences for dose sensitivity were detected. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATION: These results suggest that emetic liability can be reliably identified in a common laboratory species such as the rat. However, to evaluate the characteristics of the emetic response, no animal species is a universal predictor of emetic liability and the choice of species should be an informed decision based on the type of compound investigated. Limitations relating to the conduct and reporting of emesis studies were identified, the main ones being the lack of comparable outcome measures between human and animal data, and the limited availability of human data in the public domain.
Authors: Mark G Kris; Paul J Hesketh; Mark R Somerfield; Petra Feyer; Rebecca Clark-Snow; James M Koeller; Gary R Morrow; Lawrence W Chinnery; Maurice J Chesney; Richard J Gralla; Steven M Grunberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: T Gregg Davis; John J Peterson; Jen-Pyng Kou; Elizabeth A Capper-Spudich; Doug Ball; Anthony T Nials; Joanne Wiseman; Yemisi E Solanke; Fiona S Lucas; Richard A Williamson; Livia Ferrari; Paul Wren; Richard G Knowles; Mary S Barnette; Patricia L Podolin Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 2009-06-04 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: G A Higgins; L B Silenieks; W Lau; I A M de Lannoy; D K H Lee; J Izhakova; K Coen; A D Le; P J Fletcher Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2012-11-25 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Zengbing Lu; Nathalie Percie Du Sert; Sze Wa Chan; Chi-Kong Yeung; Ge Lin; David T W Yew; Paul L R Andrews; John A Rudd Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 5.531