Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSchabitz, Wolf-Rudiger
dc.contributor.authorFisher, Marc
dc.date2022-08-11T08:09:26.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T16:31:08Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T16:31:08Z
dc.date.issued2006-12-01
dc.date.submitted2008-04-17
dc.identifier.citationBiochem Soc Trans. 2006 Dec;34(Pt 6):1271-6. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1042/BST0341271">Link to article on publisher's site</a>
dc.identifier.issn0300-5127 (Print)
dc.identifier.doi10.1042/BST0341271
dc.identifier.pmid17073800
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/37576
dc.description.abstractAfter years of setbacks, the perspective of neuroprotective stroke therapy has revived in light of recent study results. We outline in this review how a neuroprotective candidate drug should be developed, beginning with a thorough preclinical evaluation according to the STAIR (Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable) criteria. Assessing the safety of the candidate drug in the relatively straightforward Phase IIA would be the first step into clinical development. While advancing into Phase IIB, the implementation of a responder analysis, the use of a surrogate biomarker as well as the use of Bayesian methodology should be considered to increase the likelihood of seeing any therapeutic sign. Clinical development in Phase III should consider that previously used dichotomized endpoints appropriate for evaluation of thrombolytic drugs are likely to be insufficient for assessing efficacy of neuroprotective drugs. Detection of a clinically relevant shift in the outcome measure appears to be a more relevant approach for the type of drug that achieves a reduction and not a reverse of the ischaemic lesion.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17073800&dopt=Abstract ">Link to article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1042/BST0341271
dc.subjectAnimals
dc.subjectBrain Ischemia
dc.subjectClinical Trials as Topic
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectNeuroprotective Agents
dc.subjectStroke
dc.subjectBiochemistry
dc.subjectMedicinal Chemistry and Pharmaceutics
dc.subjectNervous System Diseases
dc.subjectNeurology
dc.titlePerspectives on neuroprotective stroke therapy
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleBiochemical Society transactions
dc.source.volume34
dc.source.issuePt 6
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/neuro_pp/115
dc.identifier.contextkey492221
html.description.abstract<p>After years of setbacks, the perspective of neuroprotective stroke therapy has revived in light of recent study results. We outline in this review how a neuroprotective candidate drug should be developed, beginning with a thorough preclinical evaluation according to the STAIR (Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable) criteria. Assessing the safety of the candidate drug in the relatively straightforward Phase IIA would be the first step into clinical development. While advancing into Phase IIB, the implementation of a responder analysis, the use of a surrogate biomarker as well as the use of Bayesian methodology should be considered to increase the likelihood of seeing any therapeutic sign. Clinical development in Phase III should consider that previously used dichotomized endpoints appropriate for evaluation of thrombolytic drugs are likely to be insufficient for assessing efficacy of neuroprotective drugs. Detection of a clinically relevant shift in the outcome measure appears to be a more relevant approach for the type of drug that achieves a reduction and not a reverse of the ischaemic lesion.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathneuro_pp/115
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Neurology
dc.source.pages1271-6


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record