Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
# 217 
Guidance for Industry 
 
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Anticoccidial 
Drugs in Food-Producing Animals 
 
(This guidance #217 will supersede the CVM draft Guidance for Industry #40, entitled Draft 
Guideline for the Evaluation of The Efficacy of Anticoccidial Drugs and Anticoccidial Drug 
Combinations in Poultry, dated April 1992.) 
 
 
Submit comments on this guidance at any time.  Submit written comments to the Division of 
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 
1061, Rockville, MD 20852.  Submit electronic comments on the guidance at 
http://www.regulations.gov.  All written comments should be identified with the Docket No. 
FDA-2011-D-0784.  
For further information regarding this document, contact Emily R. Smith, (HFV-135), Center 
for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place, Rockville, 
MD  20855, 240-276-8344, e-mail: emily.smith2@fda.hhs.gov. 
Additional copies of this guidance document may be requested from the Communications 
Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 
Standish Place, Rockville, MD  20855 and may be viewed on the Internet at either 
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndust
ry/default.htm  or http://www.regulations.gov. 
 
 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
Food and Drug Administration 
Center for Veterinary Medicine 
November 2012 
 
 
  Page 1    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
Table of Contents 
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4 
I.  General Considerations .............................................................................................. 5 
A.  Protocol Development .................................................................................................. 5 
B.    Animal Welfare Considerations .................................................................................... 6 
C.    Substantial Evidence of Effectiveness .......................................................................... 6 
D.    Masking ......................................................................................................................... 7 
E.     Personnel Training and Experience .............................................................................. 7 
F.     Record Keeping ............................................................................................................ 7 
G.  Nutritional Content and Preparation of Experimental Diets ......................................... 7 
1.   Feed Form ............................................................................................................... 8 
2.   Demonstration of Nutritional Adequacy ................................................................. 9 
3.   Nutrient Assays Falling Outside the Specification Limits ...................................... 9 
H.  Drug Assays .................................................................................................................. 9 
1.   Assay Limits for Drugs.......................................................................................... 10 
2.   Feed Sampling for Drug Assays ........................................................................... 10 
I.     Combination Approvals ............................................................................................... 10 
II.  Study Considerations for Poultry ............................................................................ 11 
A.    General Recommendations ......................................................................................... 11 
1.   Study Animals........................................................................................................ 11 
2.   Concomitant Drug Therapy and Vaccination ....................................................... 11 
3.   Bird Placement/Tracking ...................................................................................... 11 
4.   Housing/Management ........................................................................................... 12 
5.   Weighing equipment.............................................................................................. 12 
B.    Battery Studies ............................................................................................................ 12 
1.   Test animals .......................................................................................................... 12 
2.   Housing ................................................................................................................. 13 
3.   Feed management ................................................................................................. 13 
4.   Inoculum ............................................................................................................... 13 
Table 1.  Maximum acceptable age of commonly recognized field isolates of 
Eimeria spp. in chickens ........................................................................................... 14 
Table 2.  Maximum acceptable age of commonly recognized field isolates of 
Eimeria spp. in turkeys ............................................................................................. 14 
5.   Predicting the virulence of the inoculum .............................................................. 14 
6.   Battery Study Design............................................................................................. 15 
7.   Variables for Evaluation of Efficacy..................................................................... 16 
8.   Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................ 20 
9.   Basis of Study Conclusion ..................................................................................... 21 
10. Anticoccidial Sensitivity Tests............................................................................... 21 
C.    Commercial Field Study.............................................................................................. 21 
1.   Housing ................................................................................................................. 22 
2.   Test Animals .......................................................................................................... 22 
3.   Bird accountability................................................................................................ 22 
4.   Feed accountability ............................................................................................... 22 
5.   Experimental Design ............................................................................................. 22 
  Page 2    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
6.   Variables for Evaluation of Effectiveness ............................................................. 23 
7.  Descriptive Statistics .............................................................................................. 23 
III.  Effectiveness of Anticoccidial Drugs for Minor Uses and for Minor Species ..... 24 
IV.  Effectiveness of Anticoccidial Drugs in Food-Producing Mammals .................... 25 
A.    Study requirements ..................................................................................................... 25 
B.    Method of Infection ..................................................................................................... 25 
C.    Experimental Design ................................................................................................... 25 
D.    Variables for Evaluation of Effectiveness .................................................................. 26 
GLOSSARY........................................................................................................................... 27 
APPENDIX 1 ......................................................................................................................... 28 
APPENDIX 2 ......................................................................................................................... 30 
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 31 
 
 
 
 
  Page 3    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
 
EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ANTICOCCIDIAL DRUGS 
IN FOOD-PRODUCING ANIMALS 
 
This guidance represents the Food and Drug Administrations (FDAs) current thinking on 
this topic.  It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate 
to bind FDA or the public.  You can use an alternative approach if the approach satisfies the 
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.  If you want to discuss an alternative 
approach, contact the appropriate FDA staff.  If you cannot identify the appropriate FDA 
staff, call the appropriate number listed on the title page of this guidance. 
Introduction 
This guidance provides recommendations to industry relating to study design and describes 
criteria that the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) thinks are the most appropriate for 
the evaluation of the effectiveness of anticoccidial drugs in poultry and other food-producing 
animals.    
 
Section I discusses general considerations regarding the development of protocols, study 
conduct, animal welfare, substantial evidence of effectiveness, feed preparation, nutritional 
content of experimental diets, and the assessment of drug concentrations in experimental 
diets.   
 
Section II discusses the studies CVM recommends to substantiate effectiveness of an 
anticoccidial drug in poultry.    
 
Sections III and IV provide information regarding the development of studies to demonstrate 
the effectiveness of anticoccidials for minor uses and minor species and the effectiveness of 
anticoccidials in food-producing mammals, respectively.     
 
The guidance is not a comprehensive source of information on conducting clinical 
effectiveness studies.  Alternative study designs for providing substantial evidence of 
effectiveness may be acceptable.  Sponsors should contact CVM to discuss their 
development plan prior to initiating any studies.  Sponsors and clinical investigators should 
consult the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR Parts 511 and 514) for information on the 
proper shipment, use, and disposition of investigational new animal drugs, as well as 
submission of the results of clinical investigations.   
 
FDAs guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally 
enforceable responsibilities.  Instead, guidances describe the Agencys current thinking 
on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or 
statutory requirements are cited.  The use of the word "should" in Agency guidances 
means that something is suggested or recommended, but not required.  
  Page 4    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
I.  GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 
 
We consider the indication, For the control of coccidiosis caused by (specific Eimeria spp.) 
appropriate for anticoccidial drugs; however, a treatment indication may be considered.  You 
should design your protocol to support your intended indication.   
A.  Protocol Development 
 
A protocol should be developed to specifically describe the plan for conducting an 
effectiveness study.  The protocol must include a clear statement of the study objective(s), 
state the hypothesis, describe the experimental design in detail, and include success, entrance, 
and exclusion criteria (21 CFR  514.117(b)(2), (4)-(6)).  Your protocol should be based 
upon sound scientific principles and processes.  The characteristics of an adequate and well-
controlled study are described in 21 CFR  514.117.  Sponsors should follow the format for 
writing protocols that is recommended in CVM Guidance for Industry No. 85: Good Clinical 
Practices: VICH GL9, Final Guidance, 05/09/01, section 6 
(http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/Guida
nceforIndustry/UCM052417.pdf ).   
 
CVM recommends that sponsors submit protocols for review and obtain a Protocol 
Concurrence Letter from CVM before beginning essential studies1.  CVMs concurrence 
with a study protocol represents a fundamental agreement with the design, execution, and 
analyses proposed in the protocol.  CVM concurrence represents a commitment that we will 
not later alter our perspectives on these issues unless public or animal health concerns appear 
that we did not recognize at the time of the protocol assessment.  Because this concurrence 
does not extend to any subsequent changes a sponsor may make to the protocol, sponsors 
may want to seek concurrence on the revised protocol if they make changes.  Protocol 
concurrence does not guarantee that the results of the study will support a particular finding 
or approval of the new animal drug. 2 
Sponsors may choose to submit either a master or a site-specific protocol.  Sponsors should 
identify which type of protocol they are submitting.  A master protocol provides general 
information on principles that apply to all study sites.  Master protocols allow any clinical 
investigator to have all the details needed to conduct the entire study, including, but not 
limited to the following:  test and control article specifications, blocking and randomization 
schemes, a description of the animal model, inclusion/exclusion criteria, variables of interest, 
statistical analysis, treatment groups, schedule, and success criteria.  Additionally, a master 
protocol may be used as the basis from which more detailed, site-specific protocols are 
developed and written.   
A site-specific protocol should contain information present in a master protocol plus any 
                                                 
1 See Guidance for Industry #215:  Target Animal Safety and Effectiveness Protocol Development and 
Submission, Final Guidance 
2 Animal Drug User Fee Act Performance Goals and Procedures, 
http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/AnimalDrugUserFeeActADUFA/ucm042936.htm   
  Page 5    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
detailed information pertaining to the study site, including, but not limited to the following:  
location of the study/studies, personnel involved, diet(s) to be fed, detailed facility diagrams 
showing cage or house locations, location of feeders and waters, environmental conditions, 
and standard operating procedures.  
 
If you are submitting a protocol to CVM, we suggest planning your schedule so that there is 
sufficient time for us to review it before the proposed start date of any studies. 
B.   Animal Welfare Considerations 
All studies using live animals that are conducted in the United States must conform to the 
requirements of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which is administered by the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA).  The USDA has issued policies and regulations on how 
to comply with the requirements of the AWA.  In addition, many research institutions that 
conduct research studies using live animals are also accredited by the Association for 
Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC). 
 
Farm animals used for biomedical research (such as drug studies) fall under the purview of 
the AWA and USDA regulations.  Two publications:  the "Guide for the Care and Use of 
Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching," published by the Federation of 
Animal Science Societies (FASS), and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory 
Animals, published by the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR), may assist 
researchers in the implementation of the USDA regulations.  These guides provide 
information on the appropriate handling, housing, care, treatment, and transportation of farm 
animals for nonagricultural purposes and should be referenced when designing studies to 
demonstrate the effectiveness of anticoccidial drugs in food-producing animals.   
C.    Substantial Evidence of Effectiveness 
Effectiveness must be demonstrated by substantial evidence consisting of one or more 
adequate and well-controlled studies [21 U.S.C.  360b(d)(1)(E) and (d)(3);  
21 CFR  514.1(b)(8)(ii); 21 CFR  514.4(a); and 21 CFR  514.117].   
 
CVM recommends battery studies and a multi-location commercial-scale field study to 
establish the effectiveness of anticoccidial drugs in poultry.  Battery studies are conducted to 
evaluate the efficacy of investigational new animal drugs against individual and mixed 
Eimeria species in the target animal under controlled laboratory conditions.  Commercial 
field studies are necessary to confirm effectiveness under conditions of use.  You should 
conduct a minimum of two battery studies for each Eimeria species being tested and at least 
two battery studies with the mixture of Eimeria species.  Power calculations can help you 
determine the number of experimental units needed at a site.  For independent substantiation, 
studies should be conducted by at least two different investigators using different recent 
United States field isolates.  Your protocol should specify the number of individual species 
and mixed species studies that you will conduct to demonstrate the efficacy of your 
anticoccidial drug.  A multi-location commercial field study should be conducted in the 
appropriate number of sites to ensure that the two principle objectives for the demonstration 
of effectiveness, independent substantiation and inferential value, are met.  You should 
  Page 6    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
specify in the protocol the number of study sites that you will use.  See Sections III and IV 
for information on the recommended studies to establish the effectiveness of anticoccidials 
for minor uses and minor species and the effectiveness of anticoccidials in food-producing 
mammals, respectively.   
You are required to demonstrate by substantial evidence that the new animal drug is effective 
at the dose or over the dose range selected (see 21 U.S.C  360b(d)(1)(E)).  For the purposes 
of dose characterization, you should submit sufficient information to characterize the critical 
aspects of the dose-response relationship.  You may derive dosage characterization from dose 
titration studies, pilot studies, foreign studies, or scientific literature.   
D.   Masking 
In order to minimize bias, you should mask all personnel responsible for day-to-day 
management of the animals, including those making and recording observations.  You must 
describe masking procedures in the protocol and final study report (21 CFR  514.117(b)(7)).  
Masking is an important design technique for avoiding bias in clinical trials (see CVM 
Guidance for Industry (GFI) #85: Good Clinical Practices: VICH GL9, Final Guidance, 
05/09/01). 
E.   Personnel Training and Experience 
As specified in 21 CFR  511.1(b)(7)(i), all personnel involved with the investigation must 
have adequate scientific training and experience with the target animal species and disease 
models used in the studies. 
F.   Record Keeping 
Good record keeping is a critical component in determining the effectiveness of a drug when 
it is being tested.  The integrity and accuracy of the data collected are critical to the 
acceptance of a study as substantial evidence of effectiveness.  CVMs recommended 
standard for record keeping and data management is contained in CVM GFI #85: Good 
Clinical Practices: VICH GL9, Final Guidance, 05/09/01.   
G.   Nutritional Content and Preparation of Experimental Diets 
You should feed animals nutritionally adequate diets so that observed responses can be 
attributed to the drug, rather than a possible nutritional effect.  You should formulate diets to 
meet predominant commercial practices for the species and class of animal being fed, and for 
the geographic region where you conduct the study.  You may use agricultural survey data, 
e.g., Agrimetrics, Agri-Tech, etc., to support information on predominant commercial 
practices.   
 
Nutrient recommendations for different food-producing animals, published by the National 
Research Council (NRC), may serve as a reference for formulating diets.  You should specify 
feed additives, such as antioxidants, pellet binders, copper sulfate, etc., in the diet 
formulation and ensure that any feed additives do not confound the effects of the test article. 
  Page 7    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
 
You should prepare experimental feeds from a uniform basal diet.  A uniform basal diet is 
consistent with regard to nutrient densities and ingredients.  If you derive the uniform basal 
diet from several mixer batches, you should ensure that the diet corresponding to each 
treatment group is composed of equal aliquots from each mixer batch.  In addition, you 
should describe the procedures used to prepare a uniform basal diet and collect feed samples 
in your protocol.  We realize that there may be alternative methods for preparing a uniform 
basal diet.  Before initiating any studies, we suggest that you discuss and obtain protocol 
concurrence with us regarding the procedure you wish to use. 
 
You should divide each batch equally among all treatment groups.  When a batch of feed 
runs out for one or more treatment groups, you should discontinue feeding that batch of feed 
to all remaining treatment groups and begin feeding the new batch of feed to all treatment 
groups at the same time.  Feed from the previous batch should be weighed and properly 
accounted for in the final study report.  
 
 
A NOTE ABOUT MIXING FEEDS 
 
Properly mixed feed is critical for the success of your study.  Proper mixing of feedstuffs and 
feed additives will ensure the uniform dispersal of nutrients and drug(s) in finished feeds.  
Personnel responsible for mixing feed should be aware of the performance and capabilities of 
the feed mixer(s) that will be used to prepare experimental diets.  Mix medicated feeds 
according to 21 CFR Part 225 - Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicated Feeds, 
to ensure adequate homogeneity.  All standard operating procedures used for feed mixing 
should be consistent with applicable GMP regulations for the manufacture of medicated 
feeds.  Your protocol should state that the medicated feed will be mixed at a commercial feed 
mill and shipped to the study site, or that the medicated feed will be mixed using a validated 
mixer.  Your final report should include all relevant records.  
 
 
1.   Feed Form 
 
The feed form of the experimental diet should reflect predominant commercial practices and 
take the following considerations into account:  the species and class of animal being fed, the 
geographic region where the study is conducted, and the recommendations of the supplier of 
the genetic stock.   
 
For example, for poultry battery studies, feed is typically mixed and fed as a mash, and for 
poultry commercial field studies the feed is mixed into a mash, pelleted, and crumbled.  You 
should be aware that the milling process may affect the effectiveness of the drug(s).  For 
example, poultry feed that is pelleted is typically subjected to temperatures ranging from 170 
to 200 F.  Exposure of the feed to high temperatures may affect the stability of the drug(s).  
  
  Page 8    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
2.   Demonstration of Nutritional Adequacy 
 
Test animals should be fed a nutritionally adequate diet in order to minimize confounding 
effects of nutrition on the study results.  To demonstrate the nutritional adequacy of the 
experimental diets, you should include in your protocol a complete and detailed list of the 
amounts of all feed ingredients and vitamin/mineral premixes that will be used in the uniform 
basal diet.  You should use ingredients that are representative of feedstuffs commonly used in 
each geographic location.  You should state the standard to which the nutrient levels are 
being compared (e.g., NRC, literature, broiler management guide).  For a uniform basal 
poultry diet, you should report the calculated nutrient levels of crude protein, methionine, 
cystine, lysine, calcium, phosphorus (total and available), and metabolizable energy.     
 
To ensure that experimental animals receive proper nutrient densities in the diet, you should 
conduct proximate and chemical analyses on a composite sample from the uniform basal diet.  
You should include a description of the analyses that you intend to conduct in your protocol 
and specify the number of assay replicates.  You should indicate whether the analyses are 
reported on an as-fed or dry-matter basis.   
 
The purpose of nutrient analysis is to provide additional assurance that the diets are within 
the calculated values specified in the protocol.  To determine the nutritional adequacy of the 
diet, we recommend using a 90% specification limit (SL) approach to calculate upper and 
lower specification limits for nutrient concentrations.  If you re-assay the composite sample, 
you should adjust your specification limits (See Appendix 1); however, the specification 
limits should be within those found in predominant commercial practice.   
 
3.   Nutrient Assays Falling Outside the Specification Limits 
Nutrient concentrations that fall outside the SL are not necessarily deemed unsatisfactory.  
We will consider the magnitude of the deviation from the SL, the nutritional circumstances, 
and the clinical consequences, when the adequacy of the diet is determined.  When you 
document a deviation, you should provide a written justification of the reason, and possible 
clinical relevance of the deviation. 
H.  Drug Assays 
The purpose of conducting drug assays is to verify that the drug mixed in the feed and used 
in the study is present at the appropriate concentration.  Before approval of a new animal 
drug, feed assay method transfer studies are conducted to determine the percent coefficient of 
variation3 (CV%) for fortified feed samples assayed by the analytical method.  The CV% is 
then used to calculate the permissible analytical variation (PAV), which accounts for the 
inherent variability in the analytical method, as well as in the medicated feed manufacturing 
and sampling procedures, e.g. [(2*CV%) + 5%].  Assay limits are determined by applying 
the  PAV to the average percent recovery value of fortified feed samples, giving a range of 
assay values that would be acceptable for a medicated feed manufactured at the intended 
                                                 
3 The CV% is defined as the standard deviation divided by the mean, multiplied by 100. 
  Page 9    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
concentration.  For example, if the CV% was 7.5%, and the PAV for this feed was  
(2*7.5%) + 5% = 20%, then the assay limits (assuming 100% recovery) would be 80 to 
120%. 
 
1.   Assay Limits for Drugs  
 
Assay limits for approved drugs in experimental feeds are codified in 21 CFR Part 558.4.  
Concentrations of approved drugs in experimental feeds should fall within these assay limits 
regardless of where and when a feed sample is collected.   
For investigational new animal drugs for which assay limits have not been codified, levels 
should conform to the investigational assay limits derived through the feed assay method 
transfer studies.  If the assay limits are not established before conducting studies, the assay 
method used to determine drug concentration(s) should be no more variable than the method 
that will be subjected to the method validation process.   
 
Note that a PAV relates to a single application of the assay method.  Under the proper mixing 
conditions using the correct quantity of the drug, a single assay of a feed sample should fall 
within the assay limits.  If a drug assay(s) falls outside of the assay limits, the feed should not 
be used in the study and the reason for the out-of-assay-limit result(s) should be investigated 
and discussed in your final study report.   
 
2.   Feed Sampling for Drug Assays 
 
In your protocol, you should propose a feed sampling method for the study drug assay.  The 
method used should provide for a representative sample for the drug assay.  The most 
relevant feed sampling point is where and when feed is offered to the animals, with the 
representative composite samples collected within 24 hours of feeding the animals.  If you 
choose to also confirm the drug concentration at the feed mill, please include the assay 
results with your raw study data.  
 
In addition, you should assay every batch of medicated and control feed for the presence of 
the last non-study drug (based on your mixing records), unless all of the equipment used in 
the study is dedicated and isolated to avoid cross-contamination.   
I.       Combination Approvals 
 
The Animal Drug Availability Act of 1996 (ADAA) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (the Act) and changed the requirements for the approval of certain 
combinations of new animal drugs that have been previously separately approved.  There are 
important criteria to consider before you submit a combination new animal drug application.  
For example, under section 512(d)(4) of the Act, a sponsor seeking approval of a 
combination of two or more previously approved new animal drugs may not need to conduct 
additional effectiveness studies, if each new animal drug in the combination has at least one 
unique non-overlapping indication.  However, among other things, all of the following 
criteria must be met:  the new animal drugs must provide for appropriate concurrent use, 
  Page 10    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
must be physically compatible, and not have disparate dosing regimens (21 
U.S.C.  360b(d)(4)(C) & (D)).  If you intend to submit a combination new animal drug 
application, we recommend you contact CVM for specific requirements. 
II.  STUDY CONSIDERATIONS FOR POULTRY 
General recommendations for all types of poultry studies are provided first, followed by 
specific recommendations for battery studies and the commercial scale field study. 
A.  General Recommendations 
1.   Study Animals 
 
In support of substantial evidence of effectiveness, studies should be conducted using the 
target species and class for which the drug is intended.  You should use healthy chicks or 
poults from contemporary, commercial genotypes.  You should also document the source of 
the chicks or poults and describe the age and health status of the breeder flocks.  
 
You should minimize stresses outside the scope of the study and handle birds gently at all 
times.  You should only remove birds from a study to alleviate suffering due to a clinically 
diagnosed disease or injury.  Humanely euthanize any birds that you remove.  You should 
describe the removal criteria in your protocol.   
 
2.   Concomitant Drug Therapy and Vaccination 
 
You should not use concomitant drug therapy during the study because the use of 
concomitant drug therapy can influence the test drug response and/or mask adverse drug 
reactions.    
 
You may follow a vaccination program to protect the birds against prevalent infectious 
disease(s), other than coccidiosis.  The vaccination program should not debilitate the birds or 
otherwise compromise your study.  If vaccinations are used, please address in your protocol 
any possible effects on the outcome of the study.  In addition, the study protocol should 
provide information concerning any vaccination program, including:  1) method (eye, spray 
or water); 2) date of vaccination; 3) age of the bird at vaccination; 4) source; 5) vaccine lot 
number and expiration date; 6) type of vaccine (live, modified live, or killed organisms);  
7) handling of vaccine; and 8) any other information pertaining to the vaccine(s).     
 
3.   Bird Placement/Tracking 
 
Your protocol should include a description of the method you intend to use to ensure the 
accuracy of the number of birds placed in each cage or house at the start of the study.  If 
early chick/poult mortality is a concern, you may stock birds more densely, but within the 
range of commercial stocking density.  You should not replace birds during the study.   
 
Your protocol should include a method that provides for:  1) accounting for the birds;  
  Page 11    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
2) verifying the randomization of birds to cages, and treatments to cages or houses;  
3) detecting migration or misplacement of birds; and 4) preserving the identification of the 
original gender.  
 
4.   Housing/Management 
 
To maximize the inferential value of the studies, the available square footage for the housing 
of study birds should reflect commercial practices in the geographical location of the study 
and take into account variation in seasonal temperatures and the final weight of the birds.  
You should use a number of birds per feeder or waterer that is consistent with commercial 
practices.   
 
You should observe birds at least twice a day to appropriately manage the study and to 
collect dead birds for necropsy.  Frequent visits to the facility will allow you to obtain 
clinical and management observations, such as feathering characteristics, abnormal excreta, 
or behavior.  You should adopt sanitation and bio-security programs to prevent the 
inadvertent introduction or spread of pathogens.   
 
5.   Weighing equipment 
 
All scales/balances used for weighing birds and feed should be calibrated on a regular basis 
to ensure accurate and consistent measurements.  You should include a description of the 
calibration method or a copy of the standard operating procedures in your protocol and 
provide the documentation in the final study report.   
 
B.  Battery Studies 
 
Battery studies are conducted to evaluate the efficacy of investigational new animal drugs 
against individual and mixed coccidial species in the target animal under controlled 
laboratory conditions. 
 
1.   Test animals  
 
You should use day-old birds (chicks or poults) representative of genetic stock used in 
contemporary poultry production.  You should also acclimate the birds for 10 to 14 days and 
individually identify them (via wing band, leg band, etc.) before randomly assigning them to 
cages and provide non-medicated feed ad libitum during this acclimation period.  You should 
house the birds in a way to prevent inadvertent coccidial infection during the acclimatization 
period.  In addition, as protocols are generally designed to support anticoccidial control 
claims, you should start the birds on the experimental diets at least 48 hours prior to the 
inoculation of oocysts. 
 
You should identify the method of determining the gender of birds at hatch (i.e., feather or 
vent sexing) in your protocol.  On the final weigh day, you should verify the gender of each 
  Page 12    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
bird phenotypically.  If the gender is in doubt or conflicts with the original gender 
determination, you should determine the gender by postmortem examination. 
 
2.   Housing 
 
You should give special consideration to the placement of birds within the battery.  You 
should place non-inoculated, non-medicated control groups in the uppermost battery tier to 
prevent coccidial contamination of these birds.  We prefer that male and female birds be 
separately housed.  You should randomly assign males and females to separate cages so that 
each cage has the same number of birds and the numbers of male and female cages are the 
same.  You should use uniform lighting within a block, utilizing typical commercial 
photoperiods as recommended by the breeder (e.g., 24 hours lighting, or 23 hours lighting 
with one hour off, etc.).  In this type of study, a block is defined as a row of cages containing 
at least one cage for every treatment by sex combination. 
 
3.   Feed management 
 
You should measure feed consumption concurrently with body weight gain to document drug 
intake.  Each time feed is added, you should record the date, the type of feed, and the feed 
weight.  You should design and manage feed containers in such a way as to minimize feed 
wastage and spillage into other feeders i(Williams, 1996).  You should record the weight of 
the remaining feed, per cage, at the end of the study.       
 
4.   Inoculum 
 
The inoculum is a critical factor in the validation of the disease model used in battery studies.  
The inoculum should represent field strains of coccidia that have been exposed to currently 
approved anticoccidial drugs.  You should use sporulated oocysts from recent field isolates of 
commonly recognized poultry coccidial species (Table 1 and Table 2) that have been 
exposed to contemporary anticoccidial drugs to propagate the inocula.  Recent field isolates 
reflect a state of anticoccidial susceptibility likely to be seen once the product is in use.  The 
isolates should not come from houses using anticoccidial vaccinations.  Laboratory strains 
are not representative of field strains of coccidia and are not acceptable.     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Page 13    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
Table 1.  Maximum acceptable age of commonly recognized field isolates of Eimeria 
spp. in chickens 
 
MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE AGE 
SPECIES 
OF THE ISOLATE (Years) 
E. maxima  3 
E. acervulina  3 
E. tenella  3 
E. brunetti  5 
E. mitis  3 
E. necatrix  5 
 
Table 2.  Maximum acceptable age of commonly recognized field isolates of Eimeria 
spp. in turkeys 
 
MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE AGE 
SPECIES 
OF THE ISOLATE (Years) 
E. meleagrimitis  3 
E. adenoeides  3 
E. gallopavonis  3 
You should use coccidia species that originate from North America, and are representative of 
contemporary poultry production trends.  You should report from where and when they were 
isolated, the identity of the drug(s) in the feed at the time of the outbreak, and predominant 
species involved.  Your isolate should be as pure as possible; however, single cell isolations 
are not necessary.  The isolates should be passaged through susceptible birds, oocysts 
collected at appropriate times and sporulated to produce the inoculum.  Limit the passages to 
preserve the identity of the isolate.  The mixed inoculum should be comprised of individual 
species in proportions adequate to provide the appropriate virulence.  Recombine as 
necessary to achieve the desired concentration of each individual species for the mixed 
inoculum.  You should administer the inoculum directly into the crop using a gavage 
technique.  The non-inoculated, non-medicated control group should receive an equal volume 
of water by the same method as the treated birds. 
 
5.   Predicting the virulence of the inoculum 
 
Virulence titration studies allow you to predict the number of oocysts that should be given in 
the subsequent battery studies in order to induce an acceptable coccidial infection.  You 
should conduct a virulence titration study(ies) for each Eimeria species.  You do not have to 
conduct studies for each species concurrently.  Virulence titration studies should include 
birds in a non-infected, non-medicated control group, and multiple groups given 
incrementally increasing numbers of oocysts. 
 
  Page 14    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
You should conduct virulence titration studies no more than two to three weeks before the 
battery study to maintain the integrity of the isolate.  You should submit the results of the 
virulence titration study as part of the final effectiveness study report.  If you want CVMs 
concurrence on your virulence titration protocol, you should include it along with the 
effectiveness study protocol.   
 
For chickens, poultry pathologists and parasitologists have developed methodology to 
evaluate the virulence of coccidia based on intestinal lesion scores, body weight gain, and 
mortality.ii  A clinically relevant level of virulence is characterized by 30% lower body 
weights and a 3.0 unit increase in lesion scoresiii in the inoculated non-medicated birds when 
compared to the non-inoculated non-medicated birds.  This level of virulence should result in 
lesion scores and body weight differences in the battery study that will provide an adequate 
model for assessing drug efficacy.  For battery studies using species of coccidia that typically 
result in mortality, the mortality in the infected, non-medicated birds should be around 25% 
to adequately model a naturally occurring outbreak.  We expect that the mortality will be 
most severe when E. tenella or E. necatrix are the inoculated species.   
 
Standardized lesion scoring systems for turkeys have not been established; however, the 
presence of intestinal lesions can be an indicator of virulence.iv  We recommend obtaining 
CVM concurrence for any new virulence scoring systems before using them in a battery 
study.  The most reliable clinical predictor of coccidial virulence in turkeys is body weight.  
At the conclusion of a battery study, the body weights of the infected non-medicated birds 
should be 30% less than the body weights of non-infected non-medicated birds to represent a 
clinically relevant level of virulence.   
 
For some species of coccidia in turkeys, mortality is also important for determining 
virulence.  In species of coccidia that typically result in mortality, 25% mortality in the 
infected, non-medicated birds should be expected if the disease challenge adequately mimics 
naturally occurring infection.  We expect that the mortality will be most severe when E. 
adenoeides is the inoculated species.   
 
6.   Battery Study Design 
 
We recommend a randomized complete block design for battery studies to account for 
heterogeneous environmental effects, such as temperature or humidity, which may exist 
within a facility.  Efforts should be made to ensure homogeneous distribution of cages within 
each block; however, you should place the non-inoculated, non-medicated control groups in 
the top cages to prevent cross contamination.  The cages used in the study should be identical 
in size.  Male and female birds should be caged separately.   
 
In battery studies, rows of cages usually form homogeneous blocks.  Each cage (replication 
of a treatment group) is an experimental unit.  You should block the battery horizontally to 
avoid the confounding factor of environmental differences among the rows of treated cages.  
You should describe the randomization procedures used to assign birds to cages, cages to 
blocks, and treatments to cages within a block in the protocol and final study report.   
 
  Page 15    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
To allow for individual bird variation, we recommend replication of cages within treatments.  
You should consider the number of replicates per treatment relative to the virulence to ensure 
statistically significant differences.  To accommodate the number of replicates required 
batteries can be connected together.  You should use an adequate sample size to ensure that 
the study has sufficient power to detect differences among treatments.  For determination of 
clinical significance, however, we recommend a minimum of three or four cages of each sex 
per treatment, with a minimum of ten to twelve birds per cage. 
 
You should use a minimum of three treatment groups:  
 
  non-inoculated, non-medicated control (NNC);  
  inoculated, non-medicated control (INC); and 
  inoculated, medicated (investigational new animal drug).    
 
7.   Variables for Evaluation of Efficacy 
 
a. Lesion scores 
 
In chickens, evaluate lesion scores 6 or 7 days post-inoculation in all birds.  Only one person 
should score lesions at each study location.  The lesion scoring details will differ depending 
on whether single or mixed Eimeria species are being studied.  See Johnson and Reid (1970) 
iii for examples of single species and mixed species lesion scoring methodology for chickens.  
For deaths attributable to coccidiosis, assign the highest lesion score to the most severely 
affected region of the intestine.        
 
Alternative methods of lesion scoring may be acceptable, but we recommend that you discuss 
them with us before conducting the battery studies.  Regardless of the method chosen, you 
should provide a detailed description of the pathology associated with each lesion score 
grade in your protocol and final study report.   
 
b. Fecal scores (dropping scores) 
 
For turkeys, visual inspection of infected intestines (lesion scoring) for evaluating 
anticoccidial efficacy can prove challenging because the pathology associated with turkey 
Eimeria spp. can be subtle and is less conducive to standardized scoring.  Therefore, fecal 
scoring is an option for use as a primary variable for evaluation of anticoccidial efficacy in 
turkeys in lieu of lesion scores.   
               
Fecal scores allow for a clinically relevant qualitative assessment of the severity of the 
coccidial infection through an examination of the gross appearance of the feces in each 
battery cage dropping tray.  You should assign fecal scores to indicate the severity of 
diarrhea using a well defined numerical scoring system (e.g., 0, 1, 2, and 3).  Your protocol 
should include a detailed description for each numerical score to ensure consistent scoring 
between investigators and a description of the time post-inoculation when scoring will occur.  
  Page 16    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
c. Mortality 
 
Some species of coccidia cause significant mortality in the field.  Therefore, it is important to 
measure mortality as an indicator of drug efficacy.  You should maintain a daily record of 
mortality by cage and include the following information in the final report:  date, cage 
identification, bird identification, gender, body weight, and necropsy diagnosis.  You should 
necropsy all birds that die or are removed from a study and classify as coccidiosis or non-
coccidiosis related mortalities.  Perform wet mount examinations from scrapings of intestinal 
lesions to identify the species of coccidia.  If circumstances prohibit a timely necropsy of the 
bird, you may freeze the bird and necropsy at a later date.   
 
Include only coccidiosis mortalities in the statistical analysis for the evaluation of efficacy.  
For deaths attributable to coccidiosis, you should assign the highest lesion score to the most 
severely affected region of the intestine.        
 
d. Body weight 
 
Body weight change is used in battery studies as a clinical measure of the short-term effects 
of the drug against coccidiosis following inoculation of the target coccidial pathogen.  
 
You should record body weights of individual birds on the following days (see Diagram 1): 
 
        1)  Day 0, Inoculation (10 to 14 days of age) 
        2)  Day 6 or 7, Lesion scoring (20 or 21 days of age) 
 
Diagram 1.  Example of timing of body weight measurements by Study Day 
 
 
Day old 
  chicks or  Body 
  poults  Weights and 
Inoculation 
  obtained 
 
 
 
 
  Day -14 to Day -10  Day -2 to -1  Day 0  Day 6 to 7 
 
 
 
 
 
Randomization   
 
and  Body Weights  
 
Drug Initiation 
 
 
 
  Page 17    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
Body weights (initial and final) of birds that died or were culled for non-coccidiosis reasons 
should not be used in the analysis of the change in weight for each cage.  You should 
calculate the change in weight for live and dead birds (coccidiosis related mortality) from the 
time of inoculation until the time of lesion scoring.  This measurement assesses the efficacy 
of the anticoccidial drug on coccidial infection throughout the study period.   
 
The average weight gain (AWG) per bird in a particular cage is the total cage gain divided by 
the number of birds used in calculating the total final cage weight.   
 
AWG per bird in cage =    Total cage gain 
                               # birds1   
 
Total cage gain = Total final cage weight2 - Total initial cage weight3 
1 Number of live birds at the end of the study plus the number of birds that died of coccidiosis 
during the study. 
2Total final cage weight:  Sum of body weights at the end of the study plus the body weights 
at death of birds dying from coccidiosis. 
3Total initial cage weight:  Sum of body weights for birds that start the study minus the body 
weights of birds that died of non-coccidiosis related causes during the study. 
 
The average daily weight gain (ADWG) for the treatment group equals the sum of the 
ADWG values for each cage divided by the number of cages in the treatment group.  
 
ADWG for treatment group=    Sum of ADWG per cage for the treatment group 
                                        # cages 
 
ADWG per cage = [(Final weight of bird 1 - initial weight of bird 1) + (final weight of bird 2 
- initial weight of bird 2)...+ (final weight of bird N - initial weight of bird N)]  [(days 
survived for bird 1) + (days survived for bird 2) ...+ (days survived for bird N)]. 
 
We ask that you outline the procedures used to minimize bias in the measurement of body 
weight in the protocol.  For example, weigh treatment groups within a block in a random 
order to minimize any potential bias.  After Day 0, you should not handle the birds until the 
end of the study (except for birds that die during the study).    
 
Secondary (supportive) variables 
 
e.   Feed efficiency 
 
Coccidiosis causes intestinal pathology that may lead to a reduction in the utilization of 
nutrients.  Feed efficiency is used as a measure of the utilization of nutrients.  Feed efficiency 
measured in anticoccidial drug studies is an indirect measure of overall animal health.  If you 
use feed efficiency as a supportive variable, you should outline the procedures used in the 
measurement of feed consumption in your protocol.  In order to minimize a potential bias, 
  Page 18    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
you should weigh feed from treatment groups within a block in a random order.  The removal 
of feeders from each cage at equal intervals is one acceptable method to weigh back feed.   
 
Calculate feed efficiency (FE) as the ratio of the total feed consumed (FC) to the change in 
weight (CW) of all the birds in the entire study as follows:   
                            
                        FE = FC  CW 
 
Total feed consumed is defined as the sum of all feed additions to a cage minus the sum of all 
feed weighed back from that cage.  The change in weight (CW) during the study period is 
defined as the sum of final weights of all birds, including those that are alive at the end of the 
study, those that died of coccidiosis during the study, and those that died of non-coccidiosis 
causes during the study, minus the sum of the initial weights of all birds at the start of the 
study as follows:  
 
CW during study = (Sum of final weights of all birds)  (Sum of initial weights of all birds) 
Calculate the overall feed efficiency (OFE) of a treatment group as the mean feed efficiency 
of the cages within a treatment group as follows:     
 
 
OFE of a treatment group =  
FE cage 1 + FE cage 2 + ... FE cage N 
# cages 
                   
 
f.   Oocyst counts4 
 
You may use differences in oocyst counts between treatment groups as a supportive variable. 
Oocyst counts can be difficult to interpret for reasons such as the following: 
  Characteristics unique to a specific Eimeria species may affect intestinal peristalsis;  
  The day of maximum oocyst shedding may vary between Eimeria species;   
  Oocyst concentration in the excreta is not a linear function of oocyst concentration 
in the inoculum; and   
  Excreta volume varies with many factors, including the Eimeria species inoculated, 
the severity of the resulting infection, and feed intake during the infectious period.   
You should describe the methodology used to collect (including timing of collection), 
process, and analyze the oocysts in your protocol and final study report.  
 
                                                 
4 Upon agreement with CVM (through protocol concurrence or a pre-submission conference agreement), oocyst 
counts may be considered a primary variable in minor poultry species.  
  Page 19    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
8.   Statistical Analysis  
The final report should contain:  
 Raw data in its original form; 
 Raw data in an electronic format (Excel, SAS or text file);   
 Program code to read raw data and create calculated variables; 
 Statistical programs with documentation; and 
 All statistical output (e.g., analysis results). 
You should also provide a document identifying the purpose or content of each file and a 
document that describes variable names, abbreviations, formats, and how variables are used 
in the analysis.   
a.   Evaluation of an acceptable level of virulence 
 
You should compare the inoculated, non-medicated control group to the non-inoculated, non-
medicated control group to verify an acceptable level of virulence.  The differences between 
these groups should be clinically relevant and statistically significant at = 0.05 using a two- 
sided test.  (See section II.B.5 for a discussion of differences CVM considers clinically 
relevant).   
 
b.   Evaluation of efficacy 
 
You should compare the medicated group(s) to the inoculated, non-medicated control group 
to establish efficacy.  The differences between these groups should be clinically relevant and 
statistically significant at =0.05, two sided.  The non-inoculated, non-medicated control 
group should not be included in the statistical analysis comparing the inoculated, non-
medicated control group and the investigational treated group(s). 
c.   Analysis  
 
The protocol should describe the statistical model used to analyze each primary and 
secondary variable.  The statistical model used to analyze the data should reflect the 
experimental design and the level of measurement.  The type of model should be based on 
the response variable.  For example, response variables that are at the interval/ratio level of 
measurement can be described using a linear model; for those that are nominal/ordinal, a 
generalized linear model is appropriate.  If a randomized complete block design is used, as 
recommended, then the data should be analyzed using a mixed model analysis of variance 
(ANOVA).  The model should include block as a random effect, the main effects for 
treatment and sex (if sexes are included and separated by cage) and the appropriate 
interactions as fixed effects.   
 
  Page 20    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
You should conduct a separate statistical analysis for each area of the intestine that is lesion 
scored.  For all birds that die or are removed from the study due to coccidiosis, you should 
assign the highest lesion score to the most severely affected region of the intestine. 
 
9.   Basis of Study Conclusion 
 
You should define the basis of your study conclusion in your protocol, prior to the start of the 
study using the following success criteria (See Appendix 2).   
 
a. In order for a study to be considered in the overall determination of efficacy, the study 
should demonstrate an acceptable level of virulence, as described in Section B.8.a. above.   
 
b. In order to conclude that the drug is effective, the study should meet the following success 
criteria:  
 
1)  For chickens and turkeys, a statistically significant (=0.05, two sided) and clinically 
relevant difference in body weight gain, and mortality (if appropriate) between the 
group(s) treated with the investigational new animal drug and the inoculated, non-
medicated control group, and;  
2)  For chickens, a statistically significant (=0.05, two sided) and clinically relevant 
difference of at least one lesion score unit between the group(s) treated with the 
investigational new animal drug and the inoculated, non-medicated control group. 
3)  For turkeys, a statistically significant (=0.05, two sided) and clinically relevant 
difference in fecal scores between the group(s) treated with the investigational new 
animal drug and the inoculated, non-medicated control group. 
If a study does not meet the predefined success criteria, the conclusion will be that the drug is 
ineffective.  All studies that include an acceptable level of virulence, regardless of the 
outcome, will be used in the overall determination of efficacy.  
 
10.   Anticoccidial Sensitivity Tests 
 
Anticoccidial sensitivity tests (AST) are studies conducted with birds in battery cages to 
evaluate the effectiveness of a variety of anticoccidial drugs against a particular field isolate.  
Because of their study design and objectives, ASTs do not provide substantial evidence of 
effectiveness.  However, if conducted, the results should be submitted.   
C.  COMMERCIAL FIELD STUDY 
You should conduct a multi-location commercial-scale field study to confirm that the feeding 
level you have selected is effective under commercial production conditions.  You should 
conduct this study under actual conditions of use in commercial-scale facilities, under a 
variety of production systems and conditions.  You should use an appropriate number of 
geographic locations representing different environmental conditions, using a genetic line of 
  Page 21    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
birds commonly used in that region, and using a ration that is representative of local 
commercial practices. 
 
1.   Housing 
 
You should conduct the commercial-scale field study in housing typical for the species and 
class being tested.  We recommend using paired houses, preferably identical and facing in the 
same direction.  If facilities permit appropriate separation, you should divide each house into 
equal parts (split house design) to allow for more replicates at a study location.  
 
You should not use artificial infection in the commercial-scale field study.  Coccidia present 
in or on older litter should provide sufficient challenge to accurately assess the effectiveness 
in a commercial situation.  
 
2.   Test Animals 
 
You should use at least two different genetic lines of birds to provide independent 
substantiation of effectiveness among typically used commercial birds.  The birds in each 
location should originate from the same breeder flock source.  Typically, birds are one day of 
age at the beginning of the study.  You should rear the birds to an age that represents a 
marketable weight (by gender).  You should consider the indication and target class when 
selecting the type of birds you will use in the studies.   
 
3.   Bird accountability 
 
Bird accountability includes the number placed in each house, the number that died or were 
culled during the study, and the number of live birds sent to market at study end.  The 
protocol should describe the timing, location, and procedures associated with bird 
accountability.   
 
4.   Feed accountability 
 
You should document feed weights each time you add feed, make a diet change, and at the 
end of the study.  The protocol should describe procedures for weighing the feed and 
appropriate procedures to minimize feed wastage and spillage. 
 
5.   Experimental Design 
 
Because these studies are conducted under commercial conditions using a large number of 
birds, two treatment groups are recommended: 1) the investigational new animal drug and 2) 
a group treated with a currently approved anticoccidial drug or vaccine.  The latter group also 
serves as a standard for comparison.  The length of study should be consistent with the 
targeted birds age and class (e.g., broilers, replacements).  
 
  Page 22    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
6.   Variables for Evaluation of Effectiveness 
 
a. Mortality 
 
You should report historical mortality data for the facility.  You should record the number of 
mortalities and birds culled daily.  You should diagnose the cause of mortalities whenever 
possible.  When necessary, perform detailed necropsies to obtain accurate diagnoses.  If you 
diagnose or suspect coccidiosis, you should select a pre-determined number of birds for 
lesion scoring and oocyst speciation.   
 
If circumstances warrant ending the study prematurely (excessive mortality, natural disaster, 
etc), you should attempt to contact CVM as soon as possible to discuss the impact these 
events might have on the development plan.  Adverse reactions associated with the 
investigational use of a new animal drug must be reported in accordance with  
21 CFR  511.1(b)(8)(ii).  
 
b.   Bird weights  
 
You should record the final bird weights as soon after harvest as possible to avoid artifacts 
introduced during transit to the processing plant.  Alternatively, a random sample of birds, 
representative of the flock, may be weighed before any pre-harvest fasting.  Pre-harvest 
fasting includes the removal of feed and water before catching birds for transport to the 
processing plant.  If you choose the pre-harvest weight collection method, you should 
provide a detailed description of the procedure in the protocol.       
 
c.   Condemnation numbers 
 
You should collect condemnation data from all birds on each treatment.  You should separate 
the number of condemned carcasses attributable to the farm (i.e., tuberculosis, leukosis, 
septicemia, toxemia, inflammatory processes, synovitis, tumors, bruises, and air sacculitis) 
from the number of condemned carcasses attributable to the processing plant (i.e., overscald, 
contamination, no viscera, and plant rejects). 
 
d.   Feed consumption 
 
You should calculate feed consumption by subtracting the sum of the feed weighbacks from 
the sum of the feed additions to each house.   
 
7.  Descriptive Statistics 
 
The following results may be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the investigational new 
animal drug in comparison to the group treated with the approved anticoccidial drug or 
vaccine:  percent mortality, mean final live weight per bird, feed consumption per bird, and 
the feed conversion.  If the split house design is used, the calculations should be made on a 
per-treatment basis; otherwise, the calculations should be made on a per-house basis since the 
entire house receives the same treatment.     
  Page 23    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
 
% Mortality =  
100 X (# of birds placed at beginning of study  # of live birds at end of study)  
         (# of birds placed at beginning of study) 
 
Mean final live weight per bird =   __Total weight of live birds at end of study _ 
                                                               Total number of live birds at end of study 
 
Feed Consumption = Sum of feed additions - Sum of feed weighbacks 
 
 
Estimated feed consumption per bird =            Total feed consumed_______ 
                                                                    # of live birds at end of study 
 
Estimated feed conversion =    Total feed consumed 
                                              Total live weight 
 
Means, medians, standard deviations, ranges, minimums, and maximums, where appropriate, 
should be calculated for the variables listed above.  These should be presented in table format 
by treatment and location and by treatment combined across locations, where appropriate.  
These results will be used in the evaluation of the clinical relevance of the study.  Because of 
the small number of experimental units, statistical testing is not appropriate for this design. 
 
In addition, we recommend for descriptive purposes only that 95% confidence intervals on 
mortality be calculated assuming the binomial distribution.  The binomial confidence 
intervals treat bird as the experimental unit and thus fail to capture the dependence among 
birds within houses.  However, these intervals do provide a useful general summary of the 
precision of the estimate of mortality. 
 
III.  EFFECTIVENESS OF ANTICOCCIDIAL DRUGS FOR MINOR 
USES AND FOR MINOR SPECIES 
 
The Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2004 (MUMS Act) amended the 
Act to establish new regulatory procedures that provide incentives intended to make more 
new animal drugs legally available to veterinarians and animal owners for the treatment of 
minor animal species and uncommon diseases in major animal species.  Minor animal drug 
use includes any new animal drug for use in a minor species or a new animal drug for use in 
any animal species for control of an infrequently occurring or geographically limited disease.   
 
Minor species include any species other than cattle, horses, swine, chickens, turkeys, dogs, 
and cats (21 U.S.C.  201(nn) and (oo)).  Minor avian species include game birds, semi-
domestic waterfowl, and ratites.  CVMs Office of Minor Use and Minor Species determines 
whether your application qualifies for the incentives provided under the MUMS provisions of 
the Act.  For additional information on effectiveness requirements for anticoccidial drugs 
  Page 24    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
used in minor species, see CVMs Guidance for Industry (GFI) #61:  FDA Approval of New 
Animal Drugs for Minor Uses and for Minor Species, Final Guidance (1999). 
 
IV.  EFFECTIVENESS OF ANTICOCCIDIAL DRUGS IN FOOD-
PRODUCING MAMMALS 
 
We strongly recommend that sponsors contact CVM early in the development process, 
before conducting any studies in food-producing mammals.  Study designs are difficult to 
standardize because coccidiosis is prevalent only under certain management conditions and 
because of differences between species and classes in the prevalence and presentation of 
clinical disease.  Decisions on the specific study requirements, including the experimental 
design, appropriate effectiveness variables, and basis of study conclusions including the 
appropriate statistical analysis, made in consultation with CVM should greatly facilitate the 
development process.    
A.  Study requirements 
Substantial evidence of effectiveness may be satisfied with dose confirmation studies 
analogous to battery studies, without a commercial scale field study.  Commercial scale field 
studies are generally not necessary in mammals because dose confirmation studies are 
already conducted under field conditions.  In addition, commercial management practices for 
food-producing mammals are more variable than in poultry production systems and would be 
difficult to standardize.   
 
Effectiveness should be demonstrated for all Eimeria species included in the label 
indications.  The species of coccidia used in the studies should be representative of the 
coccidial species that cause clinical disease.  The test animal should be representative of the 
age and class of animal susceptible to coccidiosis.  Justification of the coccidia species and 
the target animal class should be provided in the protocol.  We consider mixed species 
infections acceptable.    
B.  Method of Infection 
 
CVM prefers natural infections because they more closely reflect current field isolate 
characteristics.  We may consider induced infections if you provide acceptable justification 
in your protocol for not using natural infections.  If you use induced infections, the recently 
isolated and propagated inoculum should represent the exposure of field strains of coccidia to 
current anticoccidial drugs.  Laboratory strains are not acceptable.  You should verify 
coccidial infection in all test animals by an accepted method before initiating the study.       
C.  Experimental Design 
You should use a minimum of two treatment groups: 1) infected, non-medicated control, and 
2) infected, medicated (investigational new animal drug).  You should include enough 
  Page 25    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
replicates to make a meaningful statistical comparison.  Use the standard attributes of an 
adequate and well-controlled study, as described in 21 CFR  514.117.  
D.  Variables for Evaluation of Effectiveness 
Appropriate primary effectiveness variables may include:  fecal oocyst counts, fecal scores, 
average daily weight gain, and mortality.  Clinical observations such as body condition, fecal 
consistency, attitude, and hydration may supplement the primary variables.  CVM will 
consider a literature-based justification of the clinical relevance of any variables.   
  Page 26    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
GLOSSARY 
 
The following definitions are presented for use with this guidance document. 
 
Block:  A homogeneous, but extraneous (not of interest in the study) grouping of 
experimental units designed to account for variance related to the extraneous grouping, thus 
(if successful) reducing the error variance used in hypothesis testing.  In a statistical model, 
blocks are considered a random effect. 
 
Composite sample:  A pooled sample representing samples collected from each batch of 
feed.  The number of samples from each batch of feed included in the pooled sample should 
increase with increasing batch size.   
 
Confidence interval for a population parameter:  A range of values, calculated from the 
sample observations, which are believed, with a chosen degree of confidence, to contain the 
true parameter value.  For a 95% confidence interval, one is 95% confident that the true value 
of the parameter lies within the given range.  However, for a particular interval the true value 
of the parameter is either in the given range or not.  For example, if one took repeated 
samples of size 100, calculated 95% confidence intervals from each sample, one expects that 
on the average 95 out of the 100 calculated confidence intervals would contain the true 
parameter.  
 
Descriptive statistics:  The mathematical calculations used to characterize the data collected 
in a study; at this step no statistical inferences are examined.  Some common descriptive 
statistics are means, medians, standard deviations, ranges, minimums, maximums, and 
confidence intervals. 
 
Experimental unit:  An entity to which a specific treatment is applied.  Each unit has an 
equal chance of being selected or assigned to a given treatment and units are treated and 
observed independently. 
 
Masking:  A procedure to reduce potential experimenter and observer bias, both conscious 
and unconscious, in which designated study personnel are kept uninformed of the treatment 
assignments. 
 
Randomization:  A procedure to reduce potential assignment bias by assigning study 
animals to treatment or control groups where each animal has an equally likely chance of 
being chosen. 
 
Randomized complete block design:  A design in which the experimental units to which the 
treatments are applied are separated into homogeneous groups of k experimental units, where 
k represents the number of treatments.  Within each group of k experimental units, the units 
are randomly assigned so that each unit in the group receives a different treatment.  The 
groups are called blocks and the design is called a randomized complete block design.    
 
  Page 27    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
APPENDIX 1:  CALCULATING UPPER AND LOWER SPECIFICATION 
LIMITS FOR NUTRIENTS 
 
You should select a laboratory that will conduct the chemical analyses of your uniform basal 
diet.  Once a laboratory has been selected, you should obtain the coefficient of variation 
(CV)5 associated with each laboratory assay procedure.  The CV, its justification, and a 
reference to the methodologies for each assay should be stated in the protocol. 
 
The specification limits (lower = LSL, upper = USL) for a diet formulated to contain a 
theoretical (calculated) nutrient concentration is calculated as follows: 
 
LSL = X -  t  * (CV * X) 
(/2,)
 
USL= X + t  * (CV * X) 
(/2,)
 
    where, 
 
            t  = t  = 1.645, 
(/2, ) (.10/2, )
 
                CV = coefficient of variation associated with the chemical assay, and 
 
                  X = theoretical (calculated) nutrient concentration. 
 
 
For example, the 90% specification limit for a diet formulated to contain 0.50 % dietary 
methionine, given a hypothetical CV of .12, would be calculated as follows: 
 
LSL  = 0.50% - 1.645 * (0.12 * 0.50%) 
 
  USL  = 0.50% + 1.645 * (0.12 * 0.50%), 
 
LSL   = 0.50% -  0.10% 
 
USL   = 0.50% + 0.10% 
 
Therefore, the calculated lower and upper specification limits for the nutrient concentrations 
for methionine may range from 0.40% to 0.60% .   
 
Because the t is equal to t , the CV used should be based on a large number of samples 
(.10/2, )
(greater than 30 samples).  This CV should be obtained from the analytical laboratory that 
will conduct the nutrient assays.  Analytical laboratories that routinely conduct nutrient 
analyses of feedstuffs should be able to provide you with CVs for each assay used. 
 
For products labeled for a specific dietary nutrient concentration, the chemically determined 
                                                 
5 The CV is defined as the standard deviation divided by the mean. 
  Page 28    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
nutrient concentration should fall within the specification limits.  When a single assay is 
conducted, the assay value should fall within the specification limits, as given above.  
Because multiple assays of a single feed sample provide additional information on the 
nutrient concentration, the assay values should be averaged and the specification limit should 
be adjusted.  In this situation, you can apply the adjusted specification limit method to the 
data.  This procedure will verify that the population from which the assay values are 
collected is similar with respect to the mean and variance as the population used to establish 
the assay coefficient of variation. 
 
If there are multiple assays conducted on a composite sample, the specification limit should 
be adjusted as follows: 
 
            LSL  = X - t  * (CV / n * X), 
adj (/2,)
            USL = X + t  * (CV / n * X), 
adj (/2,)
 
    where 
 
          CV = the coefficient of variation, and 
 
          n  = the square root of the number of assays conducted on a single feed sample. 
  Page 29    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
APPENDIX 2:  STUDY CONCLUSION DECISION TREE 
 
Is there an  Study not used in 
acceptable level of  No the determination 
virulence? of effectivenesss
Yes
Does the study meet the 
predetermined success 
criteria?
The recommended success criteria are: 
   1) lesion score (chickens) or
       fecal score (turkeys),
Yes    2)  weight gain, and
   3) mortality (if applicable).
No
Study outcome = 
efficacious*
Study outcome = 
not efficacious*
*Both outcomes will be evaluated in the 
overall determination of effectiveness.
                                     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Page 30    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations 
 
REFERENCES 
 
 
                                                 
i Williams, R.B., 1996.  The ratio of water and food consumption of chickens and its significance in the 
chemotherapy of coccidiosis.  Vet.  Res. Commun.  20, 437- 447 
ii Waletzky, E., 1970.  Laboratory Anticoccidial Evaluation Trials:  Review of Designs, Variables, Criteria, and 
Predictive Value for Field Use.  Experimental Parasitology.  28:42-62. 
iii Johnson, J., and W.M. Reid, 1970.  Anticoccidial drugs:  Lesion Scoring Techniques in Battery and Floor-Pen 
Experiments with Chickens.  Experimental Parasitology.  28:30-36. 
iv Holdsworth PA, Conway DP, McKenzie ME, Dayton AD, Chapman HD, Mathis GF et al. World Association 
for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (WAAVP) guidelines for evaluating the efficacy of 
anticoccidial drugs in chickens and turkeys.  Vet Parasitol  2004; 121(3-4):189-212. 
 
  Page 31