This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 40/3_suppl_1/S111    most recent STROKEAHA.108.528877v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ginsberg, M. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ginsberg, M. D. Related Collections Animal models of human disease Acute Cerebral Infarction Neuroprotectors

(Stroke. 2009;40:S111.)
© 2009 American Heart Association, Inc.

Neuroprotection

Current Status of Neuroprotection for Cerebral Ischemia

Synoptic Overview

From the Department of Neurology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Fla.

Correspondence to Myron D. Ginsberg, MD, Department of Neurology (D4-5), University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, PO Box 016960, Miami, FL 33101. E-mail mginsberg{at}med.miami.edu

Abundant preclinical studies have identified multiple mechanisms of ischemic brain injury and have provided proof of principle that strategies designed to counter these mechanisms can protect the ischemic brain. This review article emphasizes the translation of these strategies from the laboratory to clinical trials. It is a disappointing fact that many agents have been brought to clinical trial despite only modest or inconsistent preclinical evidence of neuroprotective efficacy. Preclinical investigations require rigorous attention to a variety of variables that may influence outcome. The widely touted STAIR criteria represent constructive guidelines for preclinical testing but, as experience has shown, do not increase the likelihood of translational success. Of the 160 clinical trials of neuroprotection for ischemic stroke conducted as of late 2007, only 40 represent larger-phase completed trials, and fully one half of the latter utilized a window to treatment of >6 hours, despite strong preclinical evidence that this delay exceeds the likely therapeutic window of efficacy in acute stroke. Other shortcomings of these trials include the use of agents lacking robust, consistent preclinical efficacy; inability to achieve adequate dosing in humans; and suboptimal clinical and statistical design features. Taken together, these factors identify areas of needed improvement for future trials.

Key Words: stroke • infarction • ischemia • neuroprotection • therapeutic window

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. L Gibson, B. Coomber, and J. Rathbone Is Progesterone a Candidate Neuroprotective Factor for Treatment following Ischemic Stroke? Neuroscientist, August 1, 2009; 15(4): 324 - 332. [Abstract] [PDF]