KOPS - The Institutional Repository of the University of Konstanz

Look back in anger : what clinical studies tell us about preclinical work

Aufgrund von Vorbereitungen auf eine neue Version von KOPS, können kommenden Montag und Dienstag keine Publikationen eingereicht werden. (Due to preparations for a new version of KOPS, no publications can be submitted next Monday and Tuesday.)

Look back in anger : what clinical studies tell us about preclinical work

Cite This

Files in this item

Checksum: MD5:10478f8d2d9c36c3463e3456e71205c6

HARTUNG, Thomas, 2013. Look back in anger : what clinical studies tell us about preclinical work. In: Alternatives to Animal Experimentation : ALTEX. 30(3), pp. 275-291. ISSN 0946-7785. eISSN 1868-8551. Available under: doi: 10.14573/altex.2013.3.275

@article{Hartung2013anger-41971, title={Look back in anger : what clinical studies tell us about preclinical work}, year={2013}, doi={10.14573/altex.2013.3.275}, number={3}, volume={30}, issn={0946-7785}, journal={Alternatives to Animal Experimentation : ALTEX}, pages={275--291}, author={Hartung, Thomas} }

Hartung, Thomas Look back in anger : what clinical studies tell us about preclinical work 2018-04-09T12:58:12Z eng Misled by animal studies and basic research? Whenever we take a closer look at the outcome of clinical trials in a field such as, most recently, stroke or septic shock, we see how limited the value of our preclinical models was. For all indications, 95% of drugs that enter clinical trials do not make it to the market, despite all promise of the (animal) models used to develop them. Drug development has started already to decrease its reliance on animal models: In Europe, for example, despite increasing R&D expenditure, animal use by pharmaceutical companies dropped by more than 25% from 2005 to 2008. In vitro studies are likewise limited: questionable cell authenticity, over-passaging, mycoplasma infections, and lack of differentiation as well as non-homeostatic and non-physiologic culture conditions endanger the relevance of these models. The standards of statistics and reporting often are poor, further impairing reliability. Alarming studies from industry show miserable reproducibility of landmark studies. This paper discusses factors contributing to the lack of reproducibility and relevance of pre-clinical research. The conclusion: Publish less but of better quality and do not rely on the face value of animal studies. 2018-04-09T12:58:12Z 2013 Attribution 4.0 International Hartung, Thomas

Downloads since Apr 9, 2018 (Information about access statistics)

Hartung_2-14lk1jgxwugf40.pdf 542

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Attribution 4.0 International Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 4.0 International

Search KOPS


Browse

My Account