Richard Green A, Odergren Tomas, Ashwood Tim
AstraZeneca R&D Charnwood, Loughborough LE11 5RH, UK.
Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2003 Aug;24(8):402-8. doi: 10.1016/S0165-6147(03)00192-5.
There has been a series of high-profile failures of drugs in clinical trials of acute ischaemic stroke that were designed to meet criteria necessary for drug regulatory approval. This has, again, called into question the value of animal models for identifying effective neuroprotective agents. Here, we review evidence that physiological changes (reperfusion, hyperglycaemia, hypothermia and blood pressure) produce comparable changes in outcome in both animal models and human stroke patients, which indicates that the models should identify clinically effective neuroprotective agents. We suggest that most clinical failures have occurred because compounds were administered differently in animal and clinical studies. We review earlier guidelines on the information that is necessary from preclinical studies before a compound enters clinical trials, and propose modifications to these guidelines.
在旨在满足药物监管批准所需标准的急性缺血性中风临床试验中,出现了一系列备受瞩目的药物失败案例。这再次引发了对于动物模型在识别有效神经保护剂方面价值的质疑。在此,我们回顾相关证据,即生理变化(再灌注、高血糖、低温和血压)在动物模型和人类中风患者中都会产生类似的结果变化,这表明这些模型应该能够识别出临床有效的神经保护剂。我们认为,大多数临床失败案例的发生是因为化合物在动物研究和临床研究中的给药方式不同。我们回顾了关于化合物进入临床试验之前临床前研究所需信息的早期指南,并对这些指南提出了修改建议。