DALLAS -- Uric acid was shown to be the most
successful neuroprotectant among rodents in a study from the Stroke
Preclinical Assessment Network (SPAN), a nationwide trial platform that
applies clinical research practices to preclinical studies in hopes of
better informing human studies.
Of the six interventions studied in the randomized rodent trial, uric
acid 16 mg/kg administered intravenously at the time of reperfusion
exceeded the efficacy boundaries, reported Lauren H. Sansing, MD, of
Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues during the
American Stroke Association's International Stroke Conferenceopens in a new tab or window.
The
other interventions included the Rho-associated kinase inhibitor
fasudil, the PARP inhibitor veliparib, the immunosuppressive drug
tocilizumab (Actemra), the S1P analogue fingolimod (Gilenya), and remote
ischemic conditioning, which were analyzed via corner test at 28 days.
Three interventions fell below SPAN's inferiority barriers after just
the first stage. Only uric acid remained within the study's efficacy
boundaries after four stages, ultimately surpassing their original
acceptable outcomes.
The study showed that SPAN is an effective preclinical research tool,
noted James C. Grotta, MD, a vascular neurologist at Memorial
Hermann-Texas Medical Center in Houston, who was not involved in the
study.
"The SPAN project entailed a tremendous amount of careful planning
and meticulous work by a large team, and kudos to the network for a
successful result. The 'winner,' e.g., uric acid, has withstood rigorous
testing and the stroke community is now looking forward to the clinical
trial of this approach that may complement existing reperfusion
strategies," he told MedPage Today.
During
a press conference, Sansing explained that "experimental rigor is
something we can control. SPAN embraced all of the rigor of a clinical
trial."
The study also aimed to "embrace heterogeneity," allowing for some
variation in its subjects in an effort to mimic clinical trials, she and
her colleagues noted.
Sansing cited growing public distrust in scientific research,
recently exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, as part of the reason
behind the development of SPAN. Stroke research is no exception. Several
neuroprotectant agents have performed well during the course of
preclinical trials, but failed to prove effective when introduced in
human trials -- a trend that has been documented for decades.
Sansing also pointed to an opinion piece published in Trends in Neurosciencesopens in a new tab or window
in 2007 that cited research that showed that as the quality or rigor of
a preclinical study on treatments for stroke increased, their efficacy
decreased, with the authors noting that animal models for stroke
research were "profoundly biased by aspects of study design."
More recent researchopens in a new tab or window
compiled evidence listing albumin, the potassium channel activator
BMS-204352, and the sodium channel blocker lubeluzole as just a few of
many therapies that showed promise as neuroprotectors in animal studies,
which then fell short in clinical research on humans.
For this National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
(NINDS)-funded study, six independent labs were used to conduct the
research, including Yale University, Massachusetts General Hospital,
Johns Hopkins University, the University of Texas Health Science Center
at Houston, the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, and
the University of Iowa.
A total of 2,651 rodents were included in the study, including young
mice, aging mice, mice experiencing diet-induced obesity or
hyperglycemia, young rats, and spontaneously hypertensive rats, with an
equal number of male and female rodents.
After receiving more funding from NINDS, SPAN 2.0 will continue to test neuroprotectants, utilizing six more experimental sites.
The
positive results for uric acid, the experimental rigor present in the
trials, and the renewal of the SPAN program may bring change to years of
issues regarding neuroprotectants, commented Gregory Albers, MD,
director of the Stanford Stroke Center in Palo Alto, California, during a
Q&A session on SPAN's results.
"I think it's really exciting that the winning drug had a lot of
clinical data prior to going into SPAN," he said. "We have seen a number
of these agents that have gotten into the human trials where the trial
was close but didn't quite make it, some subgroups looked great, and
then you repeat, focusing on those subgroups, and then again they didn't
make it. What I think we now have is a much higher level of enthusiasm
for this drug than what we just had from the prior clinical work that
was done for that."
-
Elizabeth Short is a staff writer for MedPage Today. She often covers pulmonology and allergy & immunology. Follow
Disclosures
The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Sansing reported no disclosures. Co-authors reported several relationships with industry.