Euthanasia is one of the most commonly performed procedures in biomedical research, involving tens of millions of animals in North America and Europe every year. The use of sodium pentobarbital, injected intraperitoneally, for killing rodents is described as an acceptable technique by the AVMA and CCAC euthanasia guidelines. This drug and route are recommended over inhalant anesthetics, carbon dioxide, and physical methods for ethical and aesthetic reasons as well as efficiency. However, a growing body of evidence challenges the efficacy and utility of intraperitoneal pentobarbital. This methodology has been described as inconsistent and may induce pain and stress. With these considerations in mind, a review of the literature is needed to assess the evidence surrounding this killing method, the associated welfare implications, and potential for refinement.

Poor research reporting is a major contributing factor to low study reproducibility, financial and animal waste. The ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines were developed to improve reporting quality and many journals support these guidelines. The influence of this support is unknown. We hypothesized that papers published in journals supporting the ARRIVE guidelines would show improved reporting compared with those in non-supporting journals. In a retrospective, observational cohort study, papers from 5 ARRIVE supporting (SUPP) and 2 non-supporting (nonSUPP) journals, published before (2009) and 5 years after (2015) the ARRIVE guidelines, were selected. Adherence to the ARRIVE checklist of 20 items was independently evaluated by two reviewers and items assessed as fully, partially or not reported. Mean percentages of items reported were compared between journal types and years with an unequal variance t-test. Individual items and sub-items were compared with a chi-square test. From an initial cohort of 956, 236 papers were included: 120 from 2009 (SUPP; n = 52, nonSUPP; n = 68), 116 from 2015 (SUPP; n = 61, nonSUPP; n = 55). The percentage of fully reported items was similar between journal types in 2009 (SUPP: 55.3 ± 11.5% [SD]; nonSUPP: 51.8 ± 9.0%; p = 0.07, 95% CI of mean difference -0.3–7.3%) and 2015 (SUPP: 60.5 ± 11.2%; nonSUPP; 60.2 ± 10.0%; p = 0.89, 95%CI -3.6–4.2%). The small increase in fully reported items between years was similar for both journal types (p = 0.09, 95% CI -0.5–4.3%). No paper fully reported 100% of items on the ARRIVE checklist and measures associated with bias were poorly reported. These results suggest that journal support for the ARRIVE guidelines has not resulted in a meaningful improvement in reporting quality, contributing to ongoing waste in animal research.

The Canadian Council on Animal Care and American Veterinary Medical Association classify intraperitoneal (IP) pentobarbital as an acceptable euthanasia method in rats. However, national guidelines do not exist for a recommended dose or volume and IP euthanasia has been described as unreliable, with misinjections leading to variable success in ensuring a timely death. The aims of this study were to assess and improve efficacy and consistency of IP euthanasia. In a randomized, blinded study, 51 adult female Sprague-Dawley rats (170–495 g) received one of four treatments: low-dose low-volume (LL) IP pentobarbital (n = 13, 200 mg/kg pentobarbital), low-dose high-volume (LH) IP pentobarbital (n = 14, 200 mg/kg diluted 1:3 with phosphate buffered saline), high-dose high-volume (HH, n = 14, 800 mg/kg pentobarbital), or saline. Times to loss of righting reflex (LORR) and cessation of heartbeat (CHB) were recorded. To identify misinjections, necropsy examinations were performed on all rats. Video recordings of LL and HH groups were analyzed for pain-associated behaviors. Between-group comparisons were performed with 1-way ANOVA and Games-Howell post hoc tests. Variability in CHB was assessed by calculating the coefficient of variation (CV). The fastest euthanasia method (CHB) was HH (283.7 ± 38.0 s), compared with LL (485.8 ± 140.7 s, p = 0.002) and LH (347.7 ± 72.0 s, p = 0.039). Values for CV were: HH, 13.4%; LH, 20.7%; LL, 29.0%. LORR time was longest in LL (139.5 ± 29.6 s), compared with HH (111.6 ± 19.7 s, p = 0.046) and LH (104.2 ± 19.3 s, p = 0.01). Misinjections occurred in 17.0% (7/41) of euthanasia attempts. Pain-associated behavior incidence ranged from 36% (4/11, LL) to 46% (5/11, HH). These data illustrate refinement of the IP pentobarbital euthanasia technique. Both dose and volume contribute to speed of death, with a dose of 800 mg/kg (HH) being the most effective method. An increase in volume alone does not significantly reduce variability. The proportion of misinjections was similar to that of previous studies.

Our limited ability to assess spontaneous pain in rodent models of painful human conditions may be associated with a translational failure of promising analgesic compounds in to clinical use. If measurement of spontaneous pain behaviours can be used to generate an analgesic intervention score their use could expand to guide the use of analgesics, as mandated by regulatory bodies and ethical and welfare obligations. One such measure of spontaneous pain, the Rat Grimace Scale (RGS), has recently been described and shown to exhibit reliability. However, reliability of measurement scores is context and content specific, and further testing required to assess translation to a heterogenous setting (different model, raters, environment). The objectives of this study were to perform reliability testing with the Rat Grimace Scale in a heterogenous setting and generate an analgesic intervention score for its use. In a randomised, blinded study, sixteen adult female rats received one of three analgesia treatments (0.05 mg/kg buprenorphine subcutaneously, 1 mg/kg meloxicam subcutaneously, 0.2 mg/kg oral buprenorphine in jelly) peri-operatively (telemetry unit implantation surgery). Rats were video-recorded (before, 1–6 and 12 hours post-operatively) and images collected for independent scoring by three blinded raters using the RGS, and five experts based on “pain/no pain” assessment. Scores were used to calculate inter- and intra-rater reliability with an intraclass correlation coefficient and generate an analgesic intervention score with receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The RGS scores showed very good inter- and intra-rater reliability (0.85 [0.78–0.90 95% CI] and 0.83 [0.76–0.89], respectively). An analgesic intervention threshold of greater than 0.67 was determined. These data demonstrate that the RGS is a useful tool which can be successfully employed in a heterogenous setting, and has the potential to guide analgesic intervention.

The aim of this study was to assess validation evidence for a sedation scale for dogs. We hypothesized that the chosen sedation scale would be unreliable when used by different raters and show poor discrimination between sedation protocols. A sedation scale (range 0–21) was used to score 62 dogs scheduled to receive sedation at two veterinary clinics in a prospective trial. Scores recorded by a single observer were used to assess internal consistency and construct validity of the scores. To assess inter-rater reliability, video-recordings of sedation assessment were randomized and blinded for viewing by 5 raters untrained in the scale. Videos were also edited to allow assessment of inter-rater reliability of an abbreviated scale (range 0–12) by 5 different raters. Both sedation scales exhibited excellent internal consistency and very good inter-rater reliability (full scale, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICCsingle] = 0.95; abbreviated scale, ICCsingle = 0.94). The full scale discriminated between the most common protocols: dexmedetomidine-hydromorphone (median [range] of sedation score, 11 [1–18], n = 20) and acepromazine-hydromorphone (5 [0–15], n = 36, p = 0.02). The hypothesis was rejected. Full and abbreviated scales showed excellent internal consistency and very good reliability between multiple untrained raters. The full scale differentiated between levels of sedation.

Rodent grimace scales have been recently validated for pain assessment, allowing evaluation of facial expressions associated with pain. The standard scoring method is retrospective, limiting its application beyond pain research. This study aimed to assess if real-time application of the Rat Grimace Scale (RGS) could reliably and accurately assess pain in rats when compared to the standard method. Thirty-two male and female Sprague-Dawley rats were block randomized into three treatment groups: buprenorphine (0.03 mg/kg, subcutaneously), multimodal analgesia (buprenorphine [0.03 mg/kg] and meloxicam [2 mg/kg], subcutaneously), or saline, followed by intra-plantar carrageenan. Real-time observations (interval and point) were compared to the standard RGS method using concurrent video-recordings. Real-time interval observations reflected the results from the standard RGS method by successfully discriminating between analgesia and saline treatments. Real-time point observations showed poor discrimination between treatments. Real-time observations showed minimal bias (<0.1) and acceptable limits of agreement. These results indicate that applying the RGS in real-time through an interval scoring method is feasible and effective, allowing refinement of laboratory rat welfare through rapid identification of pain and early intervention.