4.6 Review

The poor design of clinical trials of statins in oncology may explain their failure - Lessons for drug repurposing

期刊

CANCER TREATMENT REVIEWS
卷 69, 期 -, 页码 84-89

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2018.06.010

关键词

Statins; Clinical trial design; Drug repurposing

类别

资金

  1. Keele University
  2. Higher Committee for Education Development in Iraq [D-11-296]
  3. Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research [S1844]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Statins are widely used to treat hypercholesterolaemia. However, by inhibiting the production of mevalonate, they also reduce the production of several isoprenoids that are necessary for the function of small GTPase oncogenes such as Ras. As such, statins offer an attractive way to inhibit an undruggable target, suggesting that they may be usefully repurposed to treat cancer. However, despite numerous studies, there is still no consensus whether statins are useful in the oncology arena. Numerous preclinical studies have provided evidence justifying the evaluation of statins in cancer patients. Some retrospective studies of patients taking statins to control cholesterol have identified a reduced risk of cancer mortality. However, prospective clinical studies have mostly not been successful. We believe that this has occurred because many of the prospective clinical trials have been poorly designed. Many of these trials have failed to take into account some or all of the factors identified in preclinical studies that are likely to be necessary for statins to be efficacious. We suggest an improved trial design which takes these factors into account. Importantly, we suggest that the design of clinical trials of drugs which are being considered for repurposing should not assume it is appropriate to use them in the same way as they are used in their original indication. Rather, such trials deserve to be informed by preclinical studies that are comparable to those for any novel drug.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据