2004
DOI: 10.1007/bf03206568
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Critical appraisal of neuroprotection trials in head injury: What have we learned?

Abstract: Summary:To date, despite very encouraging preclinical results, almost all phase II/III clinical neuroprotection trials in traumatic brain injury (TBI) have failed to show any consistent improvement in outcome for TBI patients. To understand the reasons behind such developments we need to review and evaluate the evolution of trial design as a result of our changing understanding of the pathophysiology of brain cell death and progress of translational research from the laboratory bench to the bedside. This paper… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
53
0
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 75 publications
0
53
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…All of these individual differences have contributed to the failure to translate a successful pharmacological intervention to date, 7,8 and to the resultant reticence in the pharmacological industry to venture into acute brain injury trials. Nonetheless, many of these shortcomings can be easily addressed with appropriate preclinical screening and clinical trial design.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…All of these individual differences have contributed to the failure to translate a successful pharmacological intervention to date, 7,8 and to the resultant reticence in the pharmacological industry to venture into acute brain injury trials. Nonetheless, many of these shortcomings can be easily addressed with appropriate preclinical screening and clinical trial design.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, the complexity and heterogeneity of clinical TBI, and in particular the multifactorial nature of the secondary injury process, constitute one of the most significant hurdles to trial success. 8,9 Given the multifactorial nature of the secondary injury process, it is unlikely that targeting a single factor will result in a significant improvement in outcome. Conversely, simultaneously targeting several injury factors may be the most likely therapeutic approach to improve outcome.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, their complex interactions have made it difficult to determine which pathways should be addressed therapeutically in TBI. To date, most approaches to the treatment of TBI that target a single injury mechanism have failed in clinical trials (Ikonomidou and Turski, 2002;Tolias and Bullock, 2004;McKee et al, 2005). Consequently, it has been suggested that "recognition of multiple cell death pathways should lead to new treatment strategies, including both combination drug treatment and drugs that affect multiple components of the secondary injury cascade" (Faden, 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pharmacologic strategies have included blocking calcium channels and the NMDA receptor and inhibiting lipid peroxidation, free radical generation and inflammation, among many others (see Maas, 2001, Maas et al, 2005. Unfortunately, to date, no neuroprotective agent has shown efficacy in a clinical trial in TBI patients (reviewed in Maas et al, 1999, Narayan et al, 2002, Tolias and Bullock, 2004. We propose that a more mechanistic understanding of cognitive recovery after TBI will prove to be very important in evaluating new compounds intended for future clinical trials.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These long-lasting cognitive impairments are among the most debilitating outcomes in patients, yet, to date, no treatment can prevent or counteract these effects in TBI patients (Maas, 2001, Narayan et al, 2002, Tolias and Bullock, 2004.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%