4.5 Article

MC-1 (pyridoxal 5′-phosphate):: novel therapeutic applications to reduce ischaemic injury

期刊

EXPERT OPINION ON INVESTIGATIONAL DRUGS
卷 14, 期 11, 页码 1435-1442

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1517/13543784.14.11.1435

关键词

coronary revascularisation; ischaemia-reperfusion injury; P2-purinergic receptors; pyridoxal 5 '-phosphate; stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the overall efficacy of mechanical reperfusion therapies, such as percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery, in reducing the morbidity and mortality that is associated with acute ischaemic syndromes, many of the treated patients develop ischaemia-reperfusion injury due to impaired microvascular integrity, embolisation of atherothrombotic debris and/or disrupted end-organ metabolism. MC-1 is an investigational drug from Medicure, Inc. in preclinical models of ischaemia and ischaemia-reperfusion injury, treatment with MC-1 has demonstrated significant cardio- and neuroprotective effects. Although the pharmacological activity of MC-1 may involve multiple mechanisms, research suggests that at least part of the protective effect may be mediated through its actions on purinergic receptors. Early clinical experience with MC-1 also appears to be promising: in a recent Phase 11 evaluation, treatment with MC-1 was associated with a statistically significant reduction in periprocedural infarct size (as measured by area under the curve creatine kinase-myocardial band) among high-risk patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention. Based on these findings, larger, randomised trials to confirm the safety and efficacy of MC-1 in the setting of coronary artery revascularisation with coronary artery bypass graft, acute coronary syndromes and stroke are ongoing or in development. These forthcoming evaluations should clarify the safety and efficacy of MC-1 and improve the understanding regarding its potential therapeutic role in a variety of clinical settings and indications.

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

4.5
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