David W. Howells

1,026 experimental treatments in acute stroke.

Preclinical evaluation of neuroprotectants fostered high expectations of clinical efficacy. When not matched, the question arises whether experiments are poor indicators of clinical outcome or whether the best drugs were not taken forward to clinical trial. Therefore, we endeavored to contrast experimental efficacy and scope of testing of drugs used clinically and those tested only experimentally.

Update of the Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable Preclinical Recommendations

The initial Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable (STAIR) recommendations published in 1999 were intended to improve the quality of preclinical studies of purported acute stroke therapies. Although recognized as reasonable, they have not been closely followed nor rigorously validated. Substantial advances have occurred regarding the appropriate quality and breadth of preclinical testing for candidate acute stroke therapies for better clinical translation. The updated STAIR preclinical recommendations reinforce the previous suggestions that reproducibly defining dose response and time windows with both histological and functional outcomes in multiple animal species with appropriate physiological monitoring is appropriate. The updated STAIR recommendations include: the fundamentals of good scientific inquiry should be followed by eliminating randomization and assessment bias, a priori defining inclusion/exclusion criteria, performing appropriate power and sample size calculations, and disclosing potential conflicts of interest. After initial evaluations in young, healthy male animals, further studies should be performed in females, aged animals, and animals with comorbid conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia. Another consideration is the use of clinically relevant biomarkers in animal studies. Although the recommendations cannot be validated until effective therapies based on them emerge from clinical trials, it is hoped that adherence to them might enhance the chances for success.

A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research

The US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke convened major stakeholders in June 2012 to discuss how to improve the methodological reporting of animal studies in grant applications and publications. The main workshop recommendation is that at a minimum studies should report on sample-size estimation, whether and how animals were randomized, whether investigators were blind to the treatment, and the handling of data. We recognize that achieving a meaningful improvement in the quality of reporting will require a concerted effort by investigators, reviewers, funding agencies and journal editors. Requiring better reporting of animal studies will raise awareness of the importance of rigorous study design to accelerate scientific progress.

Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies

H. Bart van der Worp and colleagues discuss the controversies and possibilities of translating the results of animal experiments into human clinical trials.

How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set

The increase in annual global investment in biomedical research--reaching US

Publication Bias in Reports of Animal Stroke Studies Leads to Major Overstatement of Efficacy

240 billion in 2010--has resulted in important health dividends for patients and the public. However, much research does not lead to worthwhile achievements, partly because some studies are done to improve understanding of basic mechanisms that might not have relevance for human health. Additionally, good research ideas often do not yield the anticipated results. As long as the way in which these ideas are prioritised for research is transparent and warranted, these disappointments should not be deemed wasteful; they are simply an inevitable feature of the way science works. However, some sources of waste cannot be justified. In this report, we discuss how avoidable waste can be considered when research priorities are set. We have four recommendations. First, ways to improve the yield from basic research should be investigated. Second, the transparency of processes by which funders prioritise important uncertainties should be increased, making clear how they take account of the needs of potential users of research. Third, investment in additional research should always be preceded by systematic assessment of existing evidence. Fourth, sources of information about research that is in progress should be strengthened and developed and used by researchers. Research funders have primary responsibility for reductions in waste resulting from decisions about what research to do.

Reduced BDNF mRNA Expression in the Parkinson's Disease Substantia Nigra

Publication bias confounds attempts to use systematic reviews to assess the efficacy of various interventions tested in experiments modelling acute ischaemic stroke, leading to a 30% overstatement of efficacy of interventions tested in animals.

Pooling of Animal Experimental Data Reveals Influence of Study Design and Publication Bias

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) has potent effects on survival and morphology of dopaminergic neurons and thus its loss could contribute to death of these cells in Parkinsons disease (PD). In situ hybridization revealed that BDNF mRNA is strongly expressed by dopaminergic neurons in control substantia nigra pars compacta (SNpc). In clinically and neuropathologically typical PD, SNpc BDNF mRNA expression is reduced by 70% (P = 0.001). This reduction is due, in part, to loss of dopaminergic neurons which express BDNF. However, surviving dopaminergic neurons in the PD SNpc also expressed less BDNF mRNA (20%, P = 0.02) than their normal counterparts. Moreover, while 15% of control neurons had BDNF mRNA expression >1 SD below the control mean, twice as many (28%) of the surviving PD SNpc dopaminergic neurons had BDNF mRNA expression below this value. This 13% difference in proportions (95% CI 8-17%, P < or = 0.000001) indicates the presence of a subset of neurons in PD with particularly low BDNF mRNA expression. Moreover, both control and PD neurons displayed a direct relationship between the density of BDNF mRNA expression per square micrometer of cell surface and neuronal size (r(2) = 0.93, P </= 0.00001) which was lost only in PD neurons expressing the lowest levels of BDNF mRNA. If BDNF is an autocrine/paracrine factor for SNpc dopaminergic neurons, loss of BDNF-expressing neurons may compromise the well-being of their surviving neighbors. Moreover, neurons expressing particularly low levels of BDNF mRNA may be those at greatest risk of injury in PD and possibly the trigger for the degeneration itself.

Good laboratory practice: preventing introduction of bias at the bench

Background and Purpose— The extensive neuroprotective literature describing the efficacy of candidate drugs in focal ischemia has yet to lead to the development of effective stroke treatments. Ideally, the choice of drugs taken forward to clinical trial should be based on an unbiased assessment of all available data. Such an assessment might include not only the efficacy of a drug but also the in vivo characteristics and limits—in terms of time window, dose, species, and model of ischemia used—to that efficacy. To our knowledge, such assessments have not been made. Nicotinamide is a candidate neuroprotective drug with efficacy in experimental stroke, but the limits to and characteristics of that efficacy have not been fully described. Methods— Systematic review and modified meta-analysis of studies of experimental stroke describing the efficacy of nicotinamide. The search strategy ensured ascertainment of studies published in full and those published in abstract only. DerSimonian and Laird random effects meta-analysis was used to account for heterogeneity between studies. Results— Nicotinamide improved outcome by 0.287 (95% confidence interval 0.227 to 0.347); it was more effective in temporary ischemia models, after intravenous administration, in animals without comorbidities, and in studies published in full rather than in abstract. Studies scoring highly on a quality measure gave more precise estimates of the global effect. Conclusions— Meta-analysis provides an effective technique for the aggregation of data from experimental stroke studies. We propose new standards for reporting such studies and a systematic approach to aggregating data from the neuroprotective literature.

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

Background and Purpose— As a research community, we have failed to demonstrate that drugs which show substantial efficacy in animal models of cerebral ischemia can also improve outcome in human stroke. Summary of Review— Accumulating evidence suggests this may be due, at least in part, to problems in the design, conduct and reporting of animal experiments which create a systematic bias resulting in the overstatement of neuroprotective efficacy. Conclusions— Here, we set out a series of measures to reduce bias in the design, conduct and reporting of animal experiments modeling human stroke.