4.7 Review

Classical and novel approaches to the preclinical testing of anxiolytics: A critical evaluation

Journal

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
Volume 37, Issue 10, Pages 2318-2330

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.09.001

Keywords

Anxiety; Preclinical; Testing; Validity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Over 80% of current anxiety studies employ one of the tests that were developed earlier than, or concurrently with the elevated plus-maze, i.e. before 1985. Considering 1985 as a historical reference point, we briefly review here 115 new tests and models of anxiety, the development of which was likely prompted by the poor predictive validity of classical tests as shown here by the comparison of preclinical and clinical findings with putative novel anxiolytics. The new approaches comprise major innovations to classical tests, the pre-test application of manipulations that mimic etiological factors of anxiety disorders, and entirely new approaches including anxiety disorder-specific tests. Thus, intensive test development over the last 27 years created a large pool of novel approaches. However, these are infrequently used and as such, their impact on anxiolytic drug development remains low. We suggest here that test/model development should step over the intensive phase when several new methods are proposed each year and should start selecting and establishing the methodologies that would successfully replace or complement classical tests. We propose here a novel strategy for improving the validity of anxiety testing that includes the retrospective analysis of the predictive validity of new procedures (as opposed to classical pharmacological validation), and a call for concerted international efforts at both the conceptual and practical levels. Similar endeavors proved recently successful with other psychiatric disorders. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available