Non-Human Primate Husbandry and Impact on Non-Human Primates Health: Outcomes From an IQ DruSafe/3RS Industrial Benchmark Survey

Abstract

The presence of health issues (diarrhea, poor body condition) in non-human primates can impact animal welfare, confound toxicity study data, and lead to animal exclusion from studies. A working group cosponsored by DruSafe and 3Rs Translational and Predictive Sciences Leadership Groups of the IQ Consortium conducted a survey to benchmark quarantine, pre-study screening, husbandry, and veterinary care practices and their impact on NHP health. Nineteen companies participated in the survey providing separate responses for studies conducted in-house and at Contract Research Organizations from 3 regions (North America (NA), Europe and Asia) for an aggregate of 33 responses. A majority of responding companies conducted studies at North America CROs (39%) or in-house (36%) using primarily Chinese (33%) or Cambodian (27%) and to a lesser extent Vietnam (18%) or Mauritian (15%) origin NHPs. Forty-Five percent of responses had pre-study health issues (fecal abnormalities, etc.) on ≥ 1 studies with the highest incidence observed in Vietnam origin NHPs (80%). The survey suggested variable pre-screening and quarantine practices across facilities. Husbandry practices including behavioral assessments, environmental enrichment and consistent diets were associated with a lower incidence of health issues. The survey also benchmarked approaches used to diagnose and manage abnormal feces in NHPs and has provided strategies to minimize impact on NHP health. The survey highlighted opportunities for harmonizing screening criteria across industry and for improving tracking and sharing of health screening results, leading to further refinement of NHP veterinary care practices, higher quality studies, and reduced NHP use.

Recovery Animals in Toxicology Studies: An Innovation and Quality Consortium Perspective on Best Practices With Case Study Examples

“…A total of nine questions offered multiple options with instructions to choose all responses that applied, as well as a free text box to list additional responses if needed to provide further details or to present unique responses. 13 Nine questions (see Supplemental data) were posed to understand company strategies involving recovery groups including use of recovery control animals, number of recovery animals, therapeutic modality (small molecule and biotherapeutics), and regulatory feedback. Other modalities (vaccines, gene and cell therapy, or ASOs) were not included in the survey and are not discussed in this manuscript.…”