Animal Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Studies (APPS) Reporting Guidelines

  • Jasbir SinghEmail author
  • Fawzy Elbarbry
  • Ke Lan
  • Tomasz Grabowski
Leading Article


Animal pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies are commonly used to provide meaningful preclinical information that can be utilized by the scientific community to conduct first-in-human studies. Poor presentation and interpretation of the data limit study reproducibility, and may result in rejection when the study is submitted to a journal, leading to loss of time and resources at multiple levels. In addition, inconsistencies in reporting the results of animal studies may limit the ability to extrapolate the experimental findings to humans. A few guidelines have been published to make the reporting of animal studies consistent; however, strict implementation of these guidelines by authors, reviewers, and journal editors is still lacking. In an attempt to make the reporting of animal pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies consistent and improve the standard of reporting, this article provides guidelines that can be followed when submitting such studies to a journal. A detailed checklist, based on these guidelines, has been developed that can be used by the authors, reviewers, and editors to check if the required information is included in the manuscript. These guidelines can also be used for designing and performing such studies.


Compliance with Ethical Standards


No external source of funding was used to prepare this article.

Conflict of interest

Jasbir Singh is the Editor-in-Chief of European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics and a salaried employee of Adis International Limited. He has no other conflicts of interest to declare. Fawzy Elbarbry, Ke Lan, and Tomasz Grabowski have no conflicts of interest to declare. The Editor in Chief of the European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics was not involved in the selection of peer reviewers for the manuscript nor any of the subsequent editorial decisions.

Supplementary material

13318_2018_498_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (644 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 645 kb)
13318_2018_498_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (228 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 229 kb)
13318_2018_498_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (265 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 266 kb)


  1. 1.
    Kilkenny C, Browne W, Cuthill IC, et al. Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines. Br J Pharmacol. 2010;160(7):1577–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature. 2012;490(7419):187–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith AJ, Clutton RE, Lilley E, et al. PREPARE: guidelines for planning animal research and testing. Lab Anim. 2018;52(2):135–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Enserink M. Sloppy reporting on animal studies proves hard to change. Science. 2017;357(6358):1337–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gulin JE, Rocco DM, Garcia-Bournissen F. Quality of reporting and adherence to ARRIVE guidelines in animal studies for chagas disease preclinical drug research: a systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(11):e0004194.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baker D, Lidster K, Sottomayor A, et al. Two years later: journals are not yet enforcing the ARRIVE guidelines on reporting standards for pre-clinical animal studies. PLoS Biol. 2014;12(1):e1001756.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu Y, Zhao X, Mai Y, et al. Adherence to ARRIVE guidelines in Chinese journal reports on neoplasms in animals. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0154657.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Preparing for submission. ICMJE. 2017. Accessed 17 May 2017.
  9. 9.
    Dykstra K, Mehrotra N, Tornoe CW, et al. Reporting guidelines for population pharmacokinetic analyses. J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;55(8):875–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wade JR, Edholm M, Salmonson T. A guide for reporting the results of population pharmacokinetic analyses: a Swedish perspective. AAPS J. 2005;7(2):45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ICH. Statistical principles for clinical trials e9. 1998. Accessed 9 May 2017.
  12. 12.
    Parab S, Bhalerao S. Study designs. Int J Ayurveda Res. 2010;1(2):128–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aarons L, Ogungbenro K. Optimal design of pharmacokinetic studies. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2010;106(3):250–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robinson K. GLPs and the importance of standard operating procedures. BioPharm International. 2003. Accessed 26 Sept 2017.
  15. 15.
    Grabowski T, Marczak M, Muszynski M, et al. Harmonization of rules in GLP and pharmacokinetic analysis: regulatory view. Bioanalysis. 2012;4(4):417–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    US FDA. Comparison chart of FDA and EPA good laboratory practice (GLP) regulations and the OECD principles of GLP. 2004. Accessed 8 May 2016.
  17. 17.
    NC3Rs. The 3Rs. The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. Accessed 10 Nov 2017.
  18. 18.
    Mojiminiyi FB, Anibogu CN, Sofola AO, Adigun SA. Endothelium-dependent and -independent relaxations in aortic rings obtained from hypertensive hooded (Aguti) rats. Niger J Physiol Sci. 2007;22(1–2):109–16.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kurle CM. Interpreting temporal variation in omnivore foraging ecology via stable isotope modelling. Funct Ecol. 2009;23:733–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ICH. Guidance for industry. S6 addendum to preclinical safety evaluation of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals. 2012.…/Guidances/UCM194490.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.
  21. 21.
    OECD. Test No. 417: toxicokinetics. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals. 2010. Accessed 8 May 2016.
  22. 22.
    EC. Commission implementing decision of 14 November 2012 establishing a common format for the submission of the information pursuant to Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. 2012. Accessed 8 May 2016.
  23. 23.
    Dalgaard L. Comparison of minipig, dog, monkey and human drug metabolism and disposition. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2015;74:80–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vugmeyster Y, Xu X, Theil FP, et al. Pharmacokinetics and toxicology of therapeutic proteins: advances and challenges. World J Biol Chem. 2012;3(4):73–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    EC. 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 2010. Accessed 8 May 2016.
  26. 26.
    EMA. Guideline on regulatory acceptance of 3R (replacement, 6 reduction, refinement) testing approaches. 2014. Accessed 8 May 2010.
  27. 27.
    Baker DG, Lipman NS. Factors that can influence animal research. In: Fox J, Anderson L, Otto G, Pritchett-Corning K, Whary M, editors. Laboratory animal medicine, 3rd ed. London: Academic; 2015. p. 1441–95.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bjorkholm B, Bok CM, Lundin A, et al. Intestinal microbiota regulate xenobiotic metabolism in the liver. PLoS One. 2009;4(9):e6958.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kuno T, Hirayama-Kurogi M, Ito S, et al. Effect of intestinal flora on protein expression of drug-metabolizing enzymes and transporters in the liver and kidney of germ-free and antibiotics-treated mice. Mol Pharm. 2016;13(8):2691–701.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hoover JL, Singley CM, Elefante P, et al. Reducing antibacterial development risk for GSK1322322 by exploring potential human dose regimens in nonclinical efficacy studies using immunocompetent rats. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(11):e00959-17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barbosa ASAA, Diório SM, Pedrini SCB, et al. The relevance of nutritional status and histopathological findings on the infectious process of BALB/c mice inoculated with Lacazia loboi. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2015;57(5):421–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chow SC, Liu JP. Experimental design principles for animal studies in pharmaceutical development. In: Chow SC, Liu JP, editors. Design and analysis of animal studies in pharmaceutical development. New York: Dekker; 1998.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Law B, Temesi D. The design of pharmacokinetic studies to support drug discovery: the selection of the optimum number of animals for a study. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2003;28(3):233–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Charan J, Kantharia ND. How to calculate sample size in animal studies? J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2013;4(4):303–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fitts DA. Minimizing animal numbers: the variable-criteria sequential stopping rule. Comp Med. 2011;61(3):206–18.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Workman P, Aboagye EO, Balkwill F, et al. Guidelines for the welfare and use of animals in cancer research. Br J Cancer. 2010;102(11):1555–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    EMA. Reflection paper on methodological issues in confirmatory clinical trials planned with an adaptive design. 2007. Accessed 8 May 2017.
  38. 38.
    Heine HS, Shadomy SV, Boyer AE, et al. Evaluation of combination drug therapy for treatment of antibiotic-resistant inhalation anthrax in a murine model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(9):e00788-17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Miranda ML, Balarini MM, Balthazar DS, et al. Ivabradine attenuates the microcirculatory derangements evoked by experimental sepsis. Anesthesiology. 2017;126(1):140–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    US FDA. Guidance for industry. Content and format of effectiveness and target animal safety technical sections and final study reports for submission to the division of therapeutic drugs for non-food animals. 2001. Accessed 8 May 2017.
  41. 41.
    US FDA. Product development under the animal rule. Guidance for Industry. 2015. Accessed 8 May 2016.
  42. 42.
    US FDA. Guidance for industry. Protocol development guideline for clinical effectiveness and target animal safety trials. 2001. Accessed 8 May 2017.
  43. 43.
    EMA. Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence. 2010. Accessed 8 May 2016.
  44. 44.
    US FDA. Guidance for industry. Bioequivalence studies with pharmacokinetic endpoints for drugs submitted under an ANDA. 2013. Accessed 8 May 2017.
  45. 45.
    van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, et al. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Med. 2010;7(3):e1000245.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    OECD. OECD series on principles of GLP and compliance monitoring. 1999. Accessed 8 May 2017.
  47. 47.
    US FDA. Guidance for industry and other stakeholders toxicological principles for the safety assessment of food ingredients. 2007. Accessed 8 May 2017.
  48. 48.
    Turner PV, Brabb T, Pekow C, et al. Administration of substances to laboratory animals: routes of administration and factors to consider. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2011;50(5):600–13.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    EMA. Routes of administration controlled vocabulary. 2005. Accessed 8 May 2017.
  50. 50.
    US FDA. Guidance for industry. Population pharmacokinetics. 1999. Accessed 8 May 2017.
  51. 51.
    NC3Rs. Blood sampling. 2017. Accessed 8 May 2017.
  52. 52.
    Grabowski T, Marczak M, Jaroszewski JJ, et al. Comparison of bioequivalence study regulatory requirements for human and veterinary drugs. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2012;64(2):233–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    US FDA. Guidance for industry. Exposure–response relationships—study design, data analysis, and regulatory applications. 2003. Accessed 8 May 2017.
  54. 54.
    Vermeulen E, van den Anker JN, Della Pasqua O, et al. How to optimise drug study design: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics studies introduced to paediatricians. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2017;69(4):439–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    EMA. Guideline on bioanalytical method validation. 2011. Accessed 16 May 2017.
  56. 56.
    US FDA. Guidance for industry: Bioanalytical method validation. 2013. Accessed 8 May 2017.
  57. 57.
    EMA. Guideline on reporting the results of population pharmacokinetic analyses. 2007. Accessed 9 May 2017.
  58. 58.
    EMA. Guideline on non-clinical local tolerance testing of medicinal products. 2015. Accessed 8 May 2017.
  59. 59.
    Benet LZ, Zia-Amirhosseini P. Basic principles of pharmacokinetics. Toxicol Pathol. 1995;23(2):115–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wang YM, Wang J, Hon YY, et al. Evaluating and reporting the immunogenicity impacts for biological products—a clinical pharmacology perspective. AAPS J. 2016;18(2):395–403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors. ICMJE. 2017. Accessed 17 May 2017.
  62. 62.
    Springer. Reference styles. Springer. 2017. Accessed 17 May 2017.
  63. 63.
    Knight A. The beginning of the end for chimpanzee experiments? Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2008;3:16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Guillen J. Laboratory animals: regulations and recommendations for global collaborative research. Cambridge: Academic; 2013.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    European Commission. Ban on animal testing. 2018. Accessed 1 May 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Adis International LimitedAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.School of PharmacyPacific UniversityHillsboroUSA
  3. 3.West China School of PharmacySichuan UniversityChengduChina
  4. 4.Polpharma Biologics, Gdański Park Naukowo-TechnologicznyGdańskPoland

Personalised recommendations