Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41267921›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in toxicology2025

Rodent home cage monitoring for preclinical safety pharmacology assessment: results of a multi-company validation evaluating nonclinical and clinical data from three compounds.

R R Sillito, J Sutherland, A Milne, C Giuliano, C Sigfridsson, M Rolf, A K Cherian, M McClafferty, E I Rossman, G Teuns and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

R R SillitoActual Analytics Ltd., Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
J SutherlandCharles River Laboratories, Elphinstone Research Centre, Tranent, United Kingdom.
A MilneICON Plc, Livingston, United Kingdom.
C GiulianoAstraZeneca, R&D Biopharmaceuticals, The Discovery Centre, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
C SigfridssonAstraZeneca, R&D Biopharmaceuticals, Mölndal, Sweden.
M RolfAstraZeneca, R&D Biopharmaceuticals, Mölndal, Sweden.
A K CherianGlaxoSmithKline, Collegeville, PA, United States.
M McClaffertyGlaxoSmithKline, Collegeville, PA, United States.
E I RossmanGlaxoSmithKline, Collegeville, PA, United States.
G TeunsPreclinical Sciences and Translational Safety, Janssen R&D, a Pharmaceutical company of Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicines, Turnhoutseweg, Belgium.
J D ArmstrongActual Analytics Ltd., Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
A M HolmesNational Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The presence of central nervous system (CNS) safety concerns during early clinical testing that were not picked up in standard preclinical assessment is a major cause of attrition in drug development. It is also very expensive, time consuming and potentially dangerous for clinical trial participants. Rodent home cage monitoring approaches have previously been shown to deliver significant animal welfare benefits through group/social housing, minimal interventions avoiding stress that can confound results, and in some cases also animal reduction benefits with the multiplex data acquisition requiring fewer total animals. Here we looked at the utility of home cage monitoring to uncover potential CNS effects not identified using standard safety pharmacology tests. Method: We hypothesised that longitudinal behavioural assessment-by capturing non-evoked behaviour and reducing sampling artefacts-would be more sensitive to adverse reactions in preclinical animal models (i.e., rodents). To test this, we selected three compounds which previously passed standard safety tests but were failed later including two during clinical trials. We validated the general methodology for using home cage monitoring in safety assessment study designs from single doses to repeat dosing for up to 4 weeks. We then re-tested the three compounds in single dose studies. Results/Discussion: We showed that the methodology fits well with standard study designs. More importantly we uncovered significant findings in all three compounds that were not observed in the original classic safety pharmacology tests. The lack of such effects observed in standard preclinical assessment likely reflects functional differences between the limited observational snapshots characteristic of this approach and the more comprehensive temporal resolution enabled by continuous home cage monitoring.

Indexed as

CNS effectsFOB/Irwinfunctional observational batteryhome cage monitoringlongitudinal behavioural assessmentnon-evoked behaviourpreclinical animal modelssafety pharmacology

Identifiers

PMID41267921
PMCPMC12626872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.