Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/10084
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorO'Collins, Victoria Een
dc.contributor.authorMacleod, Malcolm Ren
dc.contributor.authorDonnan, Geoffrey Aen
dc.contributor.authorHorky, Laura Len
dc.contributor.authorvan der Worp, Bart Hen
dc.contributor.authorHowells, David Williamen
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-15T23:25:31Z
dc.date.available2015-05-15T23:25:31Z
dc.date.issued2006-03-01en
dc.identifier.citationAnnals of Neurology; 59(3): 467-77en
dc.identifier.govdoc16453316en
dc.identifier.otherPUBMEDen
dc.identifier.urihttp://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/10084en
dc.description.abstractPreclinical evaluation of neuroprotectants fostered high expectations of clinical efficacy. When not matched, the question arises whether experiments are poor indicators of clinical outcome or whether the best drugs were not taken forward to clinical trial. Therefore, we endeavored to contrast experimental efficacy and scope of testing of drugs used clinically and those tested only experimentally.We identified neuroprotectants and reports of experimental efficacy via a systematic search. Controlled in vivo and in vitro experiments using functional or histological end points were selected for analysis. Relationships between outcome, drug mechanism, scope of testing, and clinical trial status were assessed statistically.There was no evidence that drugs used clinically (114 drugs) were more effective experimentally than those tested only in animal models (912 drugs), for example, improvement in focal models averaged 31.3 +/- 16.7% versus 24.4 +/- 32.9%, p > 0.05, respectively. Scope of testing using Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable (STAIR) criteria was highly variable, and no relationship was found between mechanism and efficacy.The results question whether the most efficacious drugs are being selected for stroke clinical trials. This may partially explain the slow progress in developing treatments. Greater rigor in the conduct, reporting, and analysis of animal data will improve the transition of scientific advances from bench to bedside.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subject.otherAnimalsen
dc.subject.otherDisease Models, Animalen
dc.subject.otherDrug Evaluation, Preclinical.methodsen
dc.subject.otherHumansen
dc.subject.otherMeta-Analysis as Topicen
dc.subject.otherModels, Biologicalen
dc.subject.otherNeuroprotective Agents.therapeutic useen
dc.subject.otherPubMed.statistics & numerical dataen
dc.subject.otherResearch Designen
dc.subject.otherStroke.drug therapyen
dc.subject.otherTreatment Outcomeen
dc.title1,026 experimental treatments in acute stroke.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleAnnals of Neurologyen
dc.identifier.affiliationNeuroscience Lab, Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC 3084, Australiaen
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/ana.20741en
dc.description.pages467-77en
dc.relation.urlhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16453316en
dc.type.austinJournal Articleen
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
crisitem.author.deptThe Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

12
checked on Jan 31, 2023

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.