2004-2023年间进行的大鼠重复剂量毒性研究中报告的灌胃事件的发生率。

IF 3 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Atla-Alternatives To Laboratory Animals Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-23 DOI:10.1177/02611929251334721
Katy Taylor, Laura Rego Alvarez, Emma Grange
{"title":"2004-2023年间进行的大鼠重复剂量毒性研究中报告的灌胃事件的发生率。","authors":"Katy Taylor, Laura Rego Alvarez, Emma Grange","doi":"10.1177/02611929251334721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In animal-based toxicology studies, oral gavage is the predominant technique for administering compounds directly into the stomach. Recognised as a stressful procedure for animals, gavage is associated with accidents and 'gavage-related reflux' (GRR), which may lead to respiratory distress and/or death. This paper estimates the prevalence of incidents (deaths and/or non-fatal clinical signs) attributed to the gavage procedure in a representative sample of repeated dose toxicity test reports from the last 20 years, sourced from the ECHA CHEM database of REACH-registered chemicals. In 21% of the 300 reviewed studies, at least one death or clinical sign in rats was attributed to the gavage procedure in the study report. An additional 16% of these studies reported clinical signs associated with GRR in the animals, with no other adverse effects, but without attribution to the gavage procedure. Among those studies with incidents attributed to the gavage procedure, incidents were three times more common in 90-day studies than they were in 28-day studies. Incidents were also more likely to have occurred with the test substance rather than with the control, with highly viscous substances, and in more recently conducted studies. There was no association between the number of studies with a gavage-attributed incident and the strain, size or age of the rats, the dose volume or the testing of irritant substances. The current study suggests that incidents attributed to gavage are more prevalent than previously thought, and that a review of the gavage procedure is urgently needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":55577,"journal":{"name":"Atla-Alternatives To Laboratory Animals","volume":"53 3","pages":"154-167"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Prevalence of Reported Gavage Incidents in Repeated Dose Toxicity Studies Involving Rats Conducted Between 2004-2023.\",\"authors\":\"Katy Taylor, Laura Rego Alvarez, Emma Grange\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02611929251334721\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In animal-based toxicology studies, oral gavage is the predominant technique for administering compounds directly into the stomach. Recognised as a stressful procedure for animals, gavage is associated with accidents and 'gavage-related reflux' (GRR), which may lead to respiratory distress and/or death. This paper estimates the prevalence of incidents (deaths and/or non-fatal clinical signs) attributed to the gavage procedure in a representative sample of repeated dose toxicity test reports from the last 20 years, sourced from the ECHA CHEM database of REACH-registered chemicals. In 21% of the 300 reviewed studies, at least one death or clinical sign in rats was attributed to the gavage procedure in the study report. An additional 16% of these studies reported clinical signs associated with GRR in the animals, with no other adverse effects, but without attribution to the gavage procedure. Among those studies with incidents attributed to the gavage procedure, incidents were three times more common in 90-day studies than they were in 28-day studies. Incidents were also more likely to have occurred with the test substance rather than with the control, with highly viscous substances, and in more recently conducted studies. There was no association between the number of studies with a gavage-attributed incident and the strain, size or age of the rats, the dose volume or the testing of irritant substances. The current study suggests that incidents attributed to gavage are more prevalent than previously thought, and that a review of the gavage procedure is urgently needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55577,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Atla-Alternatives To Laboratory Animals\",\"volume\":\"53 3\",\"pages\":\"154-167\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Atla-Alternatives To Laboratory Animals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02611929251334721\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Atla-Alternatives To Laboratory Animals","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02611929251334721","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在以动物为基础的毒理学研究中,口服灌胃是将化合物直接注入胃中的主要技术。灌胃被认为是动物的应激过程,与事故和“灌胃相关反流”(GRR)有关,这可能导致呼吸窘迫和/或死亡。本文估计了在过去20年的重复剂量毒性测试报告的代表性样本中归因于灌胃过程的事件(死亡和/或非致命性临床症状)的发生率,这些报告来自于ECHA化学数据库的reach注册化学品。在300项被审查的研究中,21%的大鼠至少有一例死亡或临床症状可归因于研究报告中的灌胃过程。另有16%的研究报告了动物中与GRR相关的临床症状,没有其他不良反应,但没有归因于灌胃过程。在那些归因于灌胃过程的事件的研究中,90天研究中的事件发生率是28天研究中的三倍。在最近进行的研究中,事故也更有可能发生在测试物质上,而不是在高粘性物质的控制下。与灌食事件有关的研究数量与大鼠的品系、体型或年龄、剂量、体积或刺激性物质的测试之间没有关联。目前的研究表明,归因于灌胃的事件比以前认为的更普遍,并且迫切需要对灌胃程序进行审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Prevalence of Reported Gavage Incidents in Repeated Dose Toxicity Studies Involving Rats Conducted Between 2004-2023.

In animal-based toxicology studies, oral gavage is the predominant technique for administering compounds directly into the stomach. Recognised as a stressful procedure for animals, gavage is associated with accidents and 'gavage-related reflux' (GRR), which may lead to respiratory distress and/or death. This paper estimates the prevalence of incidents (deaths and/or non-fatal clinical signs) attributed to the gavage procedure in a representative sample of repeated dose toxicity test reports from the last 20 years, sourced from the ECHA CHEM database of REACH-registered chemicals. In 21% of the 300 reviewed studies, at least one death or clinical sign in rats was attributed to the gavage procedure in the study report. An additional 16% of these studies reported clinical signs associated with GRR in the animals, with no other adverse effects, but without attribution to the gavage procedure. Among those studies with incidents attributed to the gavage procedure, incidents were three times more common in 90-day studies than they were in 28-day studies. Incidents were also more likely to have occurred with the test substance rather than with the control, with highly viscous substances, and in more recently conducted studies. There was no association between the number of studies with a gavage-attributed incident and the strain, size or age of the rats, the dose volume or the testing of irritant substances. The current study suggests that incidents attributed to gavage are more prevalent than previously thought, and that a review of the gavage procedure is urgently needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
60
审稿时长
>18 weeks
期刊介绍: Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA) is a peer-reviewed journal, intended to cover all aspects of the development, validation, implementation and use of alternatives to laboratory animals in biomedical research and toxicity testing. In addition to the replacement of animals, it also covers work that aims to reduce the number of animals used and refine the in vivo experiments that are still carried out.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信