Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Translational Medicine 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Type 2 Diabetes | Research

Can harmonisation of outcomes bridge the translation gap for pre-clinical research? A systematic review of outcomes measured in mouse models of type 2 diabetes

Authors: Nicola L. Harman, Adrián Sanz-Moreno, Stamatia Papoutsopoulou, Katie A. Lloyd, Kamar E. Ameen-Ali, Malcolm Macleod, Paula R. Williamson

Published in: Journal of Translational Medicine | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In pre-clinical research, systematic reviews have the potential to mitigate translational challenges by facilitating understanding of how pre-clinical studies can inform future clinical research. Yet their conduct is encumbered by heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported, and those outcomes may not always relate to the most clinically important outcomes. We aimed to systematically review outcomes measured and reported in pre-clinical in vivo studies of pharmacological interventions to treat high blood glucose in mouse models of type 2 diabetes.

Methods

A systematic review of pre-clinical in vivo studies of pharmacological interventions aimed at addressing elevated blood glucose in mouse models of type 2 diabetes was completed. Studies were screened for eligibility and outcomes extracted from the included studies. The outcomes were recorded verbatim and classified into outcome domains using an existing outcome taxonomy. Outcomes were also compared to those identified in a systematic review of registered phase 3/4 clinical trials for glucose lowering interventions in people with type 2 diabetes.

Results

Review of 280 included studies identified 532 unique outcomes across 19 domains. No single outcome, or domain, was measured in all studies and only 132 (21%) had also been measured in registered phase 3/4 clinical trials. A core outcome set, representing the minimum that should be measured and reported, developed for type 2 diabetes effectiveness clinical trials includes 18 core outcomes, of these 12 (71%) outcomes were measured and reported in one or more of the included pre-clinical studies.

Conclusions

There is heterogeneity of outcomes reported in pre-clinical research. Harmonisation of outcomes across the research pathway using a core outcome set may facilitate interpretation, evidence synthesis and translational success, and may contribute to the refinement of the use of animals in research.
Systematic review registration: The study was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO Database, registration number CRD42018106831
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Clarke M, Williamson PR. Core outcome sets and systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):11.CrossRef Clarke M, Williamson PR. Core outcome sets and systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):11.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(3):280.CrossRef Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(3):280.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Kirkham JJ, Clarke M, Williamson PR. A methodological approach for assessing the uptake of core outcome sets using ClinicalTrials.gov: findings from a review of randomised controlled trials of rheumatoid arthritis. BMJ. 2017;357:2262.CrossRef Kirkham JJ, Clarke M, Williamson PR. A methodological approach for assessing the uptake of core outcome sets using ClinicalTrials.gov: findings from a review of randomised controlled trials of rheumatoid arthritis. BMJ. 2017;357:2262.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Gargon E, Gorst SL, Williamson PR. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 5th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(12):e0225980.CrossRef Gargon E, Gorst SL, Williamson PR. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 5th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(12):e0225980.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Leenaars CHC, Kouwenaar C, Stafleu FR, Bleich A, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, De Vries RBM, et al. Animal to human translation: a systematic scoping review of reported concordance rates. J Transl Med. 2019;17(1):223.CrossRef Leenaars CHC, Kouwenaar C, Stafleu FR, Bleich A, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, De Vries RBM, et al. Animal to human translation: a systematic scoping review of reported concordance rates. J Transl Med. 2019;17(1):223.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hackam DG, Redelmeier DA. Translation of research evidence from animals to humans. JAMA. 2006;296(14):1727–32.CrossRef Hackam DG, Redelmeier DA. Translation of research evidence from animals to humans. JAMA. 2006;296(14):1727–32.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Sena ES, van der Worp HB, Bath PMW, Howells DW, Macleod MR. Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol. 2010;8(3):e1000344.CrossRef Sena ES, van der Worp HB, Bath PMW, Howells DW, Macleod MR. Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol. 2010;8(3):e1000344.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Hooijmans CR, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Progress in using systematic reviews of animal studies to improve translational research. PLOS Med. 2013;10(7):e1001482.CrossRef Hooijmans CR, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Progress in using systematic reviews of animal studies to improve translational research. PLOS Med. 2013;10(7):e1001482.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Pound P, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Can prospective systematic reviews of animal studies improve clinical translation? J Transl Med. 2020;18(1):15.CrossRef Pound P, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Can prospective systematic reviews of animal studies improve clinical translation? J Transl Med. 2020;18(1):15.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Sandercock P, Roberts I. Systematic reviews of animal experiments. Lancet. 2002;360(9333):586.CrossRef Sandercock P, Roberts I. Systematic reviews of animal experiments. Lancet. 2002;360(9333):586.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ. 2004;328(7438):514–7.CrossRef Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ. 2004;328(7438):514–7.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2010;8(6):e1000412.CrossRef Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2010;8(6):e1000412.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Stroke TA. Recommendations for standards regarding preclinical neuroprotective and restorative drug development. Stroke. 1999;30(12):2752–8.CrossRef Stroke TA. Recommendations for standards regarding preclinical neuroprotective and restorative drug development. Stroke. 1999;30(12):2752–8.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Holman N, Young B, Gadsby R. Current prevalence of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in adults and children in the UK. Diabetic Med. 2015;32(9):1119–20.CrossRef Holman N, Young B, Gadsby R. Current prevalence of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in adults and children in the UK. Diabetic Med. 2015;32(9):1119–20.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Unnikrishnan R, Pradeepa R, Joshi SR, Mohan V. Type 2 diabetes: demystifying the global epidemic. Diabetes. 2017;66(6):1432–42.CrossRef Unnikrishnan R, Pradeepa R, Joshi SR, Mohan V. Type 2 diabetes: demystifying the global epidemic. Diabetes. 2017;66(6):1432–42.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Kleinert M, Clemmensen C, Hofmann SM, Moore MC, Renner S, Woods SC, et al. Animal models of obesity and diabetes mellitus. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2018;14(3):140–62.CrossRef Kleinert M, Clemmensen C, Hofmann SM, Moore MC, Renner S, Woods SC, et al. Animal models of obesity and diabetes mellitus. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2018;14(3):140–62.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Neubauer N, Kulkarni RN. Molecular approaches to study control of glucose homeostasis. ILAR J. 2006;47(3):199–211.CrossRef Neubauer N, Kulkarni RN. Molecular approaches to study control of glucose homeostasis. ILAR J. 2006;47(3):199–211.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Cefalu WT. Animal models of type 2 diabetes: clinical presentation and pathophysiological relevance to the human condition. ILAR J. 2006;47(3):186–98.CrossRef Cefalu WT. Animal models of type 2 diabetes: clinical presentation and pathophysiological relevance to the human condition. ILAR J. 2006;47(3):186–98.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Report from the Comission to the European Parliament and the Council. 2019 report on the statistics on the use of animals for scientific purposes in the Member States of the European Union in 2015-2017. COM/2020/16 fina. European Comission 2019. Report from the Comission to the European Parliament and the Council. 2019 report on the statistics on the use of animals for scientific purposes in the Member States of the European Union in 2015-2017. COM/2020/16 fina. European Comission 2019.
21.
go back to reference Harman NL, James R, Wilding J, Williamson PR. SCORE-IT (Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 diabetes): a systematic review of registered trials. Trials. 2017;18(1):597.CrossRef Harman NL, James R, Wilding J, Williamson PR. SCORE-IT (Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 diabetes): a systematic review of registered trials. Trials. 2017;18(1):597.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Harman NL, Wilding JPH, Curry D, Harris J, Logue J, Pemberton RJ, et al. Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 diabetes (SCORE-IT): a patient and healthcare professional consensus on a core outcome set for type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2019;7(1):e000700.CrossRef Harman NL, Wilding JPH, Curry D, Harris J, Logue J, Pemberton RJ, et al. Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 diabetes (SCORE-IT): a patient and healthcare professional consensus on a core outcome set for type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2019;7(1):e000700.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Dodd S, Clarke M, Becker L, Mavergames C, Fish R, Williamson PR. A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;96:84–92.CrossRef Dodd S, Clarke M, Becker L, Mavergames C, Fish R, Williamson PR. A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;96:84–92.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132.CrossRef Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Little RR, Roberts WL. A review of variant hemoglobins interfering with hemoglobin A1c measurement. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009;3(3):446–51.CrossRef Little RR, Roberts WL. A review of variant hemoglobins interfering with hemoglobin A1c measurement. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009;3(3):446–51.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Nathan DM. Long-term complications of diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(23):1676–85.CrossRef Nathan DM. Long-term complications of diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(23):1676–85.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Ali Z, Chandrasekera PC, Pippin JJ. Animal research for type 2 diabetes mellitus, its limited translation for clinical benefit, and the way forward. Alterna Lab Anim. 2018;46(1):13–22.CrossRef Ali Z, Chandrasekera PC, Pippin JJ. Animal research for type 2 diabetes mellitus, its limited translation for clinical benefit, and the way forward. Alterna Lab Anim. 2018;46(1):13–22.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Pound P, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Is it possible to overcome issues of external validity in preclinical animal research? Why most animal models are bound to fail. J Transl Med. 2018;16(1):304.CrossRef Pound P, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Is it possible to overcome issues of external validity in preclinical animal research? Why most animal models are bound to fail. J Transl Med. 2018;16(1):304.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Dutta S, Sengupta P. Men and mice: relating their ages. Life Sci. 2016;152:244–8.CrossRef Dutta S, Sengupta P. Men and mice: relating their ages. Life Sci. 2016;152:244–8.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Agoston DV. How to translate time? The temporal aspect of human and rodent biology. Front Neurol. 2017;8:92.CrossRef Agoston DV. How to translate time? The temporal aspect of human and rodent biology. Front Neurol. 2017;8:92.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Directive’, C., 2010-63-EU, art. 13.3. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes Text with EEA relevance, (2010). Directive’, C., 2010-63-EU, art. 13.3. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes Text with EEA relevance, (2010).
32.
go back to reference Ray MA, Johnston NA, Verhulst S, Trammell RA, Toth LA. Identification of markers for imminent death in mice used in longevity and aging research. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2010;49(3):282–8.PubMedPubMedCentral Ray MA, Johnston NA, Verhulst S, Trammell RA, Toth LA. Identification of markers for imminent death in mice used in longevity and aging research. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2010;49(3):282–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
33.
go back to reference Littin K, Acevedo A, Browne W, Edgar J, Mendl M, Owen D, et al. Towards humane end points: behavioural changes precede clinical signs of disease in a Huntington’s disease model. Proc Biol Sci. 2008;275(1645):1865–74.PubMedPubMedCentral Littin K, Acevedo A, Browne W, Edgar J, Mendl M, Owen D, et al. Towards humane end points: behavioural changes precede clinical signs of disease in a Huntington’s disease model. Proc Biol Sci. 2008;275(1645):1865–74.PubMedPubMedCentral
35.
go back to reference Tsilidis KK, Panagiotou OA, Sena ES, Aretouli E, Evangelou E, Howells DW, et al. Evaluation of excess significance bias in animal studies of neurological diseases. PLoS Biol. 2013;11(7):e1001609.CrossRef Tsilidis KK, Panagiotou OA, Sena ES, Aretouli E, Evangelou E, Howells DW, et al. Evaluation of excess significance bias in animal studies of neurological diseases. PLoS Biol. 2013;11(7):e1001609.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE. 2008;3(8):e3081.CrossRef Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE. 2008;3(8):e3081.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Can harmonisation of outcomes bridge the translation gap for pre-clinical research? A systematic review of outcomes measured in mouse models of type 2 diabetes
Authors
Nicola L. Harman
Adrián Sanz-Moreno
Stamatia Papoutsopoulou
Katie A. Lloyd
Kamar E. Ameen-Ali
Malcolm Macleod
Paula R. Williamson
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Type 2 Diabetes
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1479-5876
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-020-02649-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Journal of Translational Medicine 1/2020 Go to the issue