Department of Physiology and Cell Biology, MSB 3050, University of South Alabama College of Medicine, Mobile, AL, 36688, USA.
Department of Medicine, University of South Alabama College of Medicine, Mobile, AL, USA.
Basic Res Cardiol. 2017 Sep 26;112(6):64. doi: 10.1007/s00395-017-0653-y.
Scientists and clinicians have been concerned by the lack of a clinically suitable strategy for cardioprotection in patients with acute myocardial infarction despite decades of intensive pre-clinical investigations and a surprising number of clinical trials based on those observations which have uniformly been disappointing. However, it would be a mistake to abandon this search. Rather it would be useful to examine these past efforts and determine reasons for the multiple failures. It appears that earlier clinical trials were often based on results from a single experimental laboratory, thus minimizing the importance of establishing reproducibility in multiple laboratories by multiple scientists and in multiple models. Clinical trials should be discouraged unless robust protection is demonstrated in pre-clinical testing. After approximately 2005 a loading dose of a platelet P2Y receptor antagonist became increasingly widespread in patients with acute myocardial infarction prior to revascularization and quickly became standard-of-care. These agents are now thought to be a cause of failure of recent clinical trials since these pleiotropic drugs also happen to be potent postconditioning mimetics. Thus, introduction of an additional cardioprotective strategy such as ischemic postconditioning which uses the same signaling pathway as these P2Y antagonists would be redundant and doomed to failure. Additive cardioprotection could be achieved only if the second intervention had a different mechanism of cardioprotection. This concept has been demonstrated in experimental animals. So lack of reproducibility of earlier studies and failure to examine interventions in experimental animals also treated with anti-platelet agents could well explain past failures. These realizations should clear the way for development of interventions which can be translated into successful clinical treatments.
科学家和临床医生一直关注的是,尽管经过几十年的深入临床前研究和基于这些观察结果进行的大量临床试验,但仍缺乏适用于急性心肌梗死患者的临床治疗策略,而这些临床试验的结果都令人失望。然而,如果放弃对这种治疗策略的研究将是一个错误。相反,检查过去的努力并确定多次失败的原因是有益的。看起来早期的临床试验通常基于单个实验实验室的结果,从而最小化了由多个科学家在多个实验室中确定可重复性的重要性,以及在多个模型中的可重复性。除非在临床前试验中证明有强大的保护作用,否则应避免进行临床试验。大约在 2005 年之后,血小板 P2Y 受体拮抗剂的负荷剂量在接受血运重建治疗的急性心肌梗死患者中越来越广泛,很快成为了标准治疗。现在这些药物被认为是最近临床试验失败的原因,因为这些多效药物也是有效的后处理模拟物。因此,引入新的心肌保护策略,如缺血后处理,这是一种利用与这些 P2Y 拮抗剂相同信号通路的方法,可能是多余的,注定会失败。只有当第二种干预措施具有不同的心肌保护机制时,才能实现附加的心肌保护。这一概念已在实验动物中得到证实。因此,早期研究缺乏可重复性,以及未能在接受抗血小板药物治疗的实验动物中检查干预措施,这很可能解释了过去的失败。这些认识应该为开发可以转化为成功的临床治疗的干预措施铺平道路。