Leishmania Animal Models Used in Drug Discovery: A Systematic Review

Abstract

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 L. amazonensis or L. major 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.

Reporting of 3Rs Approaches in Preclinical Animal Experimental Studies—A Nationwide Study

“…Another study showed that researchers are concerned with ethical issues and discuss these with their peers [12]. Nevertheless, there still seems to be less focus on the 3Rs when sharing information on, e.g., animal models used in drug discovery [13].…”

“…To our knowledge, it is not disclosed to which extent preclinical animal experimental publications mention and promote 3R approaches. However, systematic reviews of preclinical animal experimental studies within specific science fields have shown that there is a gap when evaluating 3Rs practices [13,15]. Nevertheless, such a straightforward information route would provide researchers with 3Rs information relevant to their own field of science.…”