The trouble with translational medicine

Abstract

. Marincola FM (Clinical Center and trans‐NIH Center for Human Immunology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA). The trouble with translational medicine (Foresight). J Intern Med 2011; 270: 123–127. Increasingly more reports in the literature are reflecting on the hurdles of effective translation from promising results of biomedical research into useful therapeutics. A recurrent theme is that good intentions are frustrated by extrinsic factors upon which ‘translationalists’ have little control. It is possible that the problem resides, at least in part, within the translational community itself, which has failed to prioritize the steps required to approach the problem systematically. Most importantly, there is disproportionate emphasis on bench‐to‐bedside efforts, rather than confronting a priori the need to increase the understanding of human pathophysiology. Thus, therapeutic concepts based on experimental conditions that may not and indeed often do not represent the nature of human genetics lead to drug development that is not sufficiently applicable to the human condition. The damage is then amplified when these ill‐fated concepts are tested in clinical trials at great cost. The use of surrogate biomarkers that could allow early assessment of efficacy currently requires long‐term assessment of clinical benefit. This can delay by years or decades essential feedback about clinical efficacy. Moreover, scant effort is applied to learning whether a drug has achieved its biological endpoint, or why it failed its clinical endpoint. Thus, the feedback loop is not only delayed, but is often uninformative. As a consequence, researchers continue to produce novel therapeutic candidates based on experimental models without the essential benefit of lessons learned from previous failures. Biomedical research will succeed when drug development is guided by experience gained through informative clinical trials with the purpose of not only testing the effectiveness of treatment but also providing mechanistic insights into the differences between expected and observed results. This can only be achieved through the courageous effort of the research community to change the way biomedical research is funded, published and rewarded.

Molecular Insights on the Peripheral and Intratumoral Effects of Systemic High-Dose rIL-2 (Aldesleukin) Administration for the Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma

“…This approach may have broader implications than the understanding of how melanoma metastases respond to rIL-2 as the same transcriptional patterns are progressively more recognized as biomarkers of good clinical outcome in solid tumors in relation to their natural history or responsiveness to therapy (12). We recognize that the information provided here is limited, however, this preliminary report may galvanize a hesitant research environment currently comfortable with more standard approaches (44). …”

Altered cortical communication in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

“…Studies examining functional cortical changes in ALS have also been limited to the resting state or the performance of a motor task, which may not be representative of the changes associated with cognitive processing. In this study, participants performed the cognitive task of operating a brain-computer interface [15], a task that also reflects the priorities of communication and the maintenance of relationships in individuals living with ALS [5] and thus may be useful in developing a clinically-relevant model of cortical changes in ALS for translational research [24]. The goal of the present study was to test the hypothesis that ALS is associated with alterations in frontoparietal communication that can be assessed with electroencephalography during a cognitive task.…”

Evaluation of SLOG/TCI-III pediatric system on target control infusion of propofol

“…The present study indicates the needs of system-specific biomarkers by translational medicine. Dr Marincola recently emphasized the importance and need to increase the understanding of human pathophysiology and use surrogate biomarkers to early assess efficacy of intervention [19]. The great challenge is how to translate clinical questions and problems from the "bed" to "bench" by using advanced biotechnologies [20].…”