Pitfalls in the quest of neuroprotectants for the perinatal brain

Abstract

Sick preterm and term newborns are highly vulnerable to neural injury, and thus there has been a major search for new, safe and efficacious neuroprotective interventions in recent decades. Preclinical studies are essential to select candidate drugs for clinical trials in humans. This article focuses on 'negative' preclinical studies, i.e. studies where significant differences cannot be detected. Such findings are critical to inform both clinical and preclinical investigators, but historically they have been difficult to publish. A significant amount of time and resources is lost when negative results or nonpromising therapeutics are replicated in separate laboratories because these negative results were not shared with the research community in an open and accessible format. In this article, we discuss approaches to strengthen conclusions from negative preclinical studies and, conversely, to reduce false-negative preclinical evaluations of potential therapeutic compounds. Without being exhaustive, we address three major issues in conducting and interpreting preclinical experiments, including: (a) the choice of animal models, (b) the experimental design, and (c) issues concerning statistical analyses of the experiments. This general introduction is followed by synopses of negative data obtained from studies of three potential therapeutics for perinatal brain injury: (1) the somatostatin analog octreotide, (2) an AMPA/kainate receptor antagonist, topiramate, and (3) a pyruvate derivative, ethyl pyruvate.