Institute of Experimental Medicine, Budapest, Hungary.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013 Dec;37(10 Pt 1):2318-30. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.09.001. Epub 2012 Sep 12.
Over 80% of current anxiety studies employ one of the tests that were developed earlier than, or concurrently with the elevated plus-maze, i.e. before 1985. Considering 1985 as a historical reference point, we briefly review here 115 new tests and models of anxiety, the development of which was likely prompted by the poor predictive validity of classical tests as shown here by the comparison of preclinical and clinical findings with putative novel anxiolytics. The new approaches comprise major innovations to classical tests, the pre-test application of manipulations that mimic etiological factors of anxiety disorders, and entirely new approaches including anxiety disorder-specific tests. Thus, intensive test development over the last 27 years created a large pool of novel approaches. However, these are infrequently used and as such, their impact on anxiolytic drug development remains low. We suggest here that test/model development should step over the intensive phase when several new methods are proposed each year and should start selecting and establishing the methodologies that would successfully replace or complement classical tests. We propose here a novel strategy for improving the validity of anxiety testing that includes the retrospective analysis of the predictive validity of new procedures (as opposed to classical pharmacological validation), and a call for concerted international efforts at both the conceptual and practical levels. Similar endeavors proved recently successful with other psychiatric disorders.
超过 80%的当前焦虑研究采用了比高架十字迷宫更早或同时开发的测试之一,即在 1985 年之前。考虑到 1985 年作为一个历史参考点,我们在这里简要回顾了 115 种新的焦虑测试和模型,这些测试和模型的发展可能是由于经典测试的预测效度较差,如这里通过将临床前和临床发现与假定的新型抗焦虑药物进行比较所示。新方法包括对经典测试的重大创新、在测试前应用模拟焦虑障碍病因因素的操作,以及完全新的方法,包括焦虑障碍特异性测试。因此,在过去的 27 年中,密集的测试开发创造了大量新方法。然而,这些方法很少被使用,因此,它们对抗焦虑药物开发的影响仍然很低。我们在这里建议,测试/模型开发应该超越每年提出几种新方法的密集阶段,并开始选择和建立将成功替代或补充经典测试的方法。我们在这里提出了一种改进焦虑测试有效性的新策略,包括对新程序的预测有效性进行回顾性分析(与经典药理学验证相反),并呼吁在概念和实践层面上进行协调一致的国际努力。类似的努力最近在其他精神疾病中取得了成功。