This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (29)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Neurology, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

The Search Continues

Alan I. Faden, MD

Arch Neurol. 2001;58:1553-1555.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

INTRODUCTION

During the last decade, experimental studies of traumatic brain injury (TBI) have provided important new insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms leading to posttraumatic tissue damage and associated neurological dysfunction. The concept of delayed or secondary tissue injury has strong experimental support and a cascade of secondary injury factors has been delineated.^{1, 2} These observations have led to the application of targeted pharmacotherapies, whose aim is to block specific pathobiological pathways.^{2, 3} Such research has been aided by the development of rodent models of head injury that simulate critical components of clinical neurotrauma, as well as by the development of novel neuroprotective agents.^{3, 4} These experimental studies have identified mechanisms of delayed tissue damage and have demonstrated the effectiveness of a number of pharmacological treatment strategies.^{1, 2, 3, 4} However, despite this enormous experimental promise, the clinical studies to date have been disappointing.^{5, 6} Here we explore the conceptual and methodological issues that have . . . [Full Text of this Article]

SECONDARY INJURY AND NEUROPROTECTION: PRECLINICAL STUDIES

NEUROPROTECTION AND TBI: CLINICAL STUDIES

HETEROGENEITY OF POPULATIONS BEING STUDIED

INJURY SEVERITY

RELEVANCE OF ANIMAL MODELS

END POINTS

TIME POINTS/THERAPEUTIC WINDOWS

PHARMACOLOGY IN EXPERIMENTAL MODELS

COMBINATION OR MULTIPOTENTIAL TREATMENT STRATEGIES

OTHER METHODOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES

LESSONS LEARNED: CAN THEY BE APPLIED?

From the Departments of Neuroscience, Neurology, and Pharmacology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Corresponding author: Alan I. Faden, MD, Department of Neuroscience, EP-12 Research Bldg, 3970 Reservoir Rd NW, Washington, DC 20007 (e-mail: fadena@giccs.georgetown.edu).

RELATED ARTICLE

Archives of Neurology Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Neurol. 2001;58(10):1712-1714.
FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The Search for Neuroprotective Strategies in Stroke
Danton and Dietrich
Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2004;25:181-194.
FULL TEXT  

Traumatic Brain Injury
Finnie and Blumbergs
Vet Pathol 2002;39:679-689.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Toward Wisdom From Failure: Lessons From Neuroprotective Stroke Trials and New Therapeutic Directions
Gladstone et al.
Stroke 2002;33:2123-2136.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Endocannabinoids and Neuroprotection
Mechoulam et al.
Sci Signal 2002;2002:re5-re5.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT