The Hedgehog (HH) pathway has been linked to the formation of basal cell carcinoma (BCC), medulloblastoma, and other cancers. The recently approved orally active drugs vismodegib (GDC‐0449) and sonidegib (LDE–225) were not only efficacious for the treatment of advanced or metastatic BCC by antagonizing the smoothened (SMO) receptor, but also produced important side effects, limiting their use for less invasive BCC. Herein, we compared a large series of SMO antagonists, including GDC‐0449 and LDE‐225, the clinically tested BMS‐833923, CUR‐61414, cyclopamine, IPI‐926 (saridegib), itraconazole, LEQ‐506, LY‐2940680 (taladegib), PF‐04449913 (glasdegib), and TAK‐441 as well as preclinical candidates (PF‐5274857, MRT‐83) in two SMO‐dependent cellular assays and for G‐protein activation. We report marked differences in inhibitor potencies between compounds as well as a notable disparity between the G‐protein assay and the cellular tests, suggesting that classification of drugs is assay dependent. Furthermore, we explored topical efficacies of SMO antagonists on depilated mice using Gli1 and Ptch1 mRNA quantification in skin as biomarkers of the HH signaling inhibition. This topical model rapidly discriminated drugs in terms of efficacies and potencies for inhibition of both biomarkers. SMO antagonists showed also a large variation in their blood and skin partition, suggesting that some drugs are more favorable for topical application. Overall, our data suggested that in vitro and in vivo efficacious drugs such as LEQ‐506 and TAK‐441 may be of interest for topical treatment of less invasive BCC with minimal side effects.

Directive 2010/63/EU was adopted in September 2010 by the European Parliament and Council, and became effective in January 2013. It replaces Directive 86/609/EEC and introduces new requirements for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. In particular, it requires that establishments that breed, supply or use laboratory animals have a designated veterinarian (DV) with expertise in laboratory animal medicine, or a suitably qualified expert where more appropriate, charged with advisory duties in relation to the well-being and treatment of the animals. This paper is a report of an ESLAV/ECLAM/LAVA/EVERI working group that provides professional guidance on the role and postgraduate training of laboratory animal veterinarians (LAVs), who may be working as DVs under Directive 2010/63/EU. It is also aimed at advising employers, regulators and other persons working under the Directive on the role of the DV. The role and responsibilities of the DV include the development, implementation and continuing review of an adequate programme for veterinary care at establishments breeding and/or using animals for scientific purposes. The programme should be tailored to the needs of the establishment and based on the Directive's requirements, other legislations, and current guidelines in laboratory animal medicine. Postgraduate laboratory animal veterinary training should include a basic task-specific training module for DVs to complement veterinary competences from graduation, and continuing professional development on the basis of a gap analysis. A tiered approach to further training in laboratory animal veterinary medicine and science offers career development pathways that are mutually beneficial to LAVs and establishments.