Literature DB >> 35354299

The Stroke Preclinical Assessment Network: Rationale, Design, Feasibility, and Stage 1 Results.

Patrick D Lyden1,2, Francesca Bosetti3, Márcio A Diniz4, André Rogatko4, James I Koenig3, Jessica Lamb1, Karisma A Nagarkatti1, Ryan P Cabeen5, David C Hess6, Pradip K Kamat6, Mohammad B Khan6, Kristofer Wood6, Krishnan Dhandapani7, Ali S Arbab8, Enrique C Leira9,10,11, Anil K Chauhan12, Nirav Dhanesha12, Rakesh B Patel12, Mariia Kumskova12, Daniel Thedens13, Andreia Morais14, Takahiko Imai14, Tao Qin14, Cenk Ayata14,15, Ligia S B Boisserand16, Alison L Herman16, Hannah E Beatty16, Sofia E Velazquez16,17, Sebastian Diaz-Perez17, Basavaraju G Sanganahalli18, Jelena M Mihailovic, Fahmeed Hyder19, Lauren H Sansing16,17, Raymond C Koehler20, Steven Lannon20, Yanrong Shi20, Senthilkumar S Karuppagounder21, Adnan Bibic22, Kazi Akhter22, Jaroslaw Aronowski23, Louise D McCullough23, Anjali Chauhan23, Andrew Goh23.   

Abstract

Cerebral ischemia and reperfusion initiate cellular events in brain that lead to neurological disability. Investigating these cellular events provides ample targets for developing new treatments. Despite considerable work, no such therapy has translated into successful stroke treatment. Among other issues-such as incomplete mechanistic knowledge and faulty clinical trial design-a key contributor to prior translational failures may be insufficient scientific rigor during preclinical assessment: nonblinded outcome assessment; missing randomization; inappropriate sample sizes; and preclinical assessments in young male animals that ignore relevant biological variables, such as age, sex, and relevant comorbid diseases. Promising results are rarely replicated in multiple laboratories. We sought to address some of these issues with rigorous assessment of candidate treatments across 6 independent research laboratories. The Stroke Preclinical Assessment Network (SPAN) implements state-of-the-art experimental design to test the hypothesis that rigorous preclinical assessment can successfully reduce or eliminate common sources of bias in choosing treatments for evaluation in clinical studies. SPAN is a randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded, multilaboratory trial using a multi-arm multi-stage protocol to select one or more putative stroke treatments with an implied high likelihood of success in human clinical stroke trials. The first stage of SPAN implemented procedural standardization and experimental rigor. All participating research laboratories performed middle cerebral artery occlusion surgery adhering to a common protocol and rapidly enrolled 913 mice in the first of 4 planned stages with excellent protocol adherence, remarkable data completion and low rates of subject loss. SPAN stage 1 successfully implemented treatment masking, randomization, prerandomization inclusion/exclusion criteria, and blinded assessment to exclude bias. Our data suggest that a large, multilaboratory, preclinical assessment effort to reduce known sources of bias is feasible and practical. Subsequent SPAN stages will evaluate candidate treatments for potential success in future stroke clinical trials using aged animals and animals with comorbid conditions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  animals; cerebral arteries; clinical trial; research design; translational research

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35354299      PMCID: PMC9038686          DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.038047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stroke        ISSN: 0039-2499            Impact factor:   10.170


  35 in total

Review 1.  Visualizing cell death in experimental focal cerebral ischemia: promises, problems, and perspectives.

Authors:  Marietta Zille; Tracy D Farr; Ingo Przesdzing; Jochen Müller; Clemens Sommer; Ulrich Dirnagl; Andreas Wunder
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 6.200

Review 2.  How can we improve the pre-clinical development of drugs for stroke?

Authors:  Emily Sena; H Bart van der Worp; David Howells; Malcolm Macleod
Journal:  Trends Neurosci       Date:  2007-08-31       Impact factor: 13.837

3.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

Authors:  Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 6.317

4.  Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy.

Authors:  Emily S Sena; H Bart van der Worp; Philip M W Bath; David W Howells; Malcolm R Macleod
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 8.029

Review 5.  Remote ischaemic conditioning-a new paradigm of self-protection in the brain.

Authors:  David C Hess; Rolf A Blauenfeldt; Grethe Andersen; Kristina D Hougaard; Md Nasrul Hoda; Yuchuan Ding; Xunming Ji
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 42.937

6.  Evolution of ischemic damage and behavioural deficit over 6 months after MCAo in the rat: Selecting the optimal outcomes and statistical power for multi-centre preclinical trials.

Authors:  Sarah S J Rewell; Leonid Churilov; T Kate Sidon; Elena Aleksoska; Susan F Cox; Malcolm R Macleod; David W Howells
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Why most published research findings are false.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2005-08-30       Impact factor: 11.613

8.  Systematic and detailed analysis of behavioural tests in the rat middle cerebral artery occlusion model of stroke: Tests for long-term assessment.

Authors:  Rebecca C Trueman; Claris Diaz; Tracy D Farr; David J Harrison; Anna Fuller; Paweł F Tokarczuk; Andrew J Stewart; Stephen J Paisey; Stephen B Dunnett
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2016-01-01       Impact factor: 6.200

9.  Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples.

Authors:  Bernhard Voelkl; Lucile Vogt; Emily S Sena; Hanno Würbel
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 8.029

Review 10.  Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of preclinical studies: why perform them and how to appraise them critically.

Authors:  Emily S Sena; Gillian L Currie; Sarah K McCann; Malcolm R Macleod; David W Howells
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 6.200

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.