4.5 Review

Clinical Trials in Acute Ischemic Stroke

期刊

CNS DRUGS
卷 28, 期 10, 页码 929-938

出版社

ADIS INT LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-014-0199-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is a major cause of mortality and disability and remains a serious and significant global health problem. The development of neurovascular protectants to treat AIS successfully has been beset by disappointments and setbacks. Many promising candidates have lacked significant pleiotropic protective activity for brain tissue and cerebral blood vessels in clinical trials, while those with protective activity have had poor bioavailability or high toxicity. Moreover, the majority of agents did not confer significant neurovascular protection or clinical efficacy, as measured by standard behavioral end-points in clinical trials of heterogeneous populations of patients with AIS. The recombinant tissue plasminogen activator alteplase is approved in many countries for the treatment of AIS in the first 3 h after symptom onset. Many drug candidates have been subject to clinical trials, including those with anti-excitotoxic, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antiapoptotic/regenerative, calcium/adrenergic-modulating/antihypertensive, thrombolytic, nootropic/stimulant, fluid regulatory, or oxygen-delivering mechanisms of action. Some agents, such as tenecteplase, edaravone and minocycline, may be approved for global use in the future. This review evaluates almost all neurovascular protectants subject to clinical trial evaluation for the treatment of AIS, and includes 241 studies conducted between 1978 and 2014. The development of agents that reduce brain injury after AIS will require new and different approaches based on a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology of AIS. Moreover, the future treatment for AIS is likely to lie in combination therapy rather than monotherapy. Additional approaches to the testing and use of neurovascular protectants should be considered.

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