Neuroprotection in stroke;
a slow burner.
One of the real surprises of
medical school is coming to terms with the protracted nature of medical
research. Developing a robust drug which
passes appropriate quality and safety standards is increasingly likely to tip-toe over the decade mark onwards.
Within Neurology, arguably the most
troublesome of clinic trials has revolved around finding a group of
neuroprotective agents which tick all the boxes. Neuroprotection works on the
principal that neuronal tissue may be salvaged from an ischaemic event by
endowing it with a greater resilience to the effects of hypoxia.
While neuroprotective agents offer
a tantalizing holy grail of a lower risk, lower resource alternative to
thrombolytics, the development process has been dogged by setbacks..... To the tune
of over 1000 unsuccessful potential treatments.
Most of which have been nipped in the bud by the jump from
cellular and rodent models to human trials by an unwanted side
effects profile or ineffectiveness.
NA-1, is a neuroprotective agent that
has previously been shown to be efficacious in a primate model of stroke. It works by disrupting the neurotoxic
pathways of NMDA glutamate receptors and imbuing cells with a greater tolerance
to hypoxia. A recent Lancet Neurology paper followed a phase II trial of
individuals undergoing endovascular intracranial aneurysm repair. Participants were randomized to receive
either intraoperative NA-1 or a saline control. Up to 90% of individuals
undergoing this procedure show evidence of small embolic iatrogenic stroke on
diffusion weighted MRI. So the study
group was a very appropriate target to put it mildly.
Individuals receiving NA-1 were
significantly less likely to have experienced new brain infarctions (OR 0.53 CL
0.38-74) on DW MRI then controls. More
so, rather conspicuously, the authors reported no serious adverse effects of
the study drug, a promising finding that if genuine warrants a larger trial.
However the drug's administration soley to individuals who were anaesthetised may
limit its study in the near future to invasive treatments carrying a risk of
brain injury rather than community admitted patients with ischaemic
stroke.
For the moment the clock keeps
ticking…
No comments:
Post a Comment