From the National Institute of Mental Health, NIH Rockville, MD.
Independent Expert, Philadelphia, PA.
J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2022;42(3):234-237. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001553.
PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Drug trials of the central nervous system(CNS) have been plagued with uninformative failures, often because of the difficulties of knowing definitively whether dosing achieved was sufficient to modulate the intended CNS target at adequate concentrations to produce pharmacodynamic or dose-related changes in readouts of brain function. Key design elements can be introduced into early-stage trials to get at this issue.
METHODS/PROCEDURES: This commentary builds on a review of earlier clinical studies in Fragile X syndrome to explore the extent to which the chain of evidence is in place to allow for interpretation of the results as ruling in or out the utility of modulating one or another molecular target to treat this disorder. Recent and current biomarker studies in Fragile X syndrome occurring subsequent to the clinical studies are reviewed to see if they might address any chain of evidence gaps.
FINDINGS/RESULTS: Despite the strong preclinical basis for targeting molecular mechanisms, the lack of efficacy seen in clinical studies remains uninterpretable, with regard to ruling in or out the utility of targeting the mechanism in a clinical population, given the absence of studies, which address whether doses of administered drug impacted the targeted brain mechanism.
IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: The value of pursuing clinical studies of compounds targeted to novel mechanisms in the absence of clinical pharmacological evidence of some anticipated mediating pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic signals is questionable. One or more biomarkers of a drug effect on brain function are needed to establish dose dependent CNS effects that allow one to interpret clinical results as ruling in or out a mechanism and providing a firm basis for continuing or not, as well as informing dose selection in any clinical efficacy trials. Initiatives to address this general need in pediatric psychopharmacology are highlighted.
目的/背景:中枢神经系统(CNS)的药物试验一直受到无信息失败的困扰,通常是因为难以确定给药剂量是否足以调节预期的 CNS 靶标,以达到足够的浓度,从而在大脑功能的读出物中产生药效学或剂量相关的变化。可以在早期试验中引入关键设计元素来解决这个问题。
方法/程序:本评论以脆性 X 综合征的早期临床研究为基础,探讨了证据链的程度,以便可以解释结果,即调节一个或另一个分子靶标是否有助于治疗这种疾病。综述了脆性 X 综合征在这些临床研究之后进行的最近和当前的生物标志物研究,以了解它们是否可以解决任何证据链差距。
结果/发现:尽管针对分子机制的强烈临床前基础,但临床试验中观察到的疗效缺乏仍然无法解释,因为缺乏研究来解决给药药物剂量是否影响靶向脑机制的问题,因此无法判断靶向该机制在临床人群中的效用。
结论/意义:在缺乏某些预期的中介药代动力学/药效学信号的临床药理学证据的情况下,追求针对新机制的化合物的临床研究的价值值得怀疑。需要有一个或多个药物对大脑功能影响的生物标志物,以确定与剂量相关的 CNS 效应,从而可以解释临床试验结果,判断机制是否存在,并为继续或不继续提供坚实的基础,并为任何临床疗效试验提供剂量选择信息。强调了针对儿科精神药理学这一普遍需求的举措。