Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26979921›Full record

ReviewNeuropharmacology2017

The need for new approaches in CNS drug discovery: Why drugs have failed, and what can be done to improve outcomes.

Valentin K Gribkoff, Leonard K Kaczmarek

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuropharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 182 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
182citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

182 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 354 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. New approach methodologies in neurotherapeutics development.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026
    Review
  7. Biodistribution, Radiation Dosimetry, and Kinetic Modeling of [Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

122 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Valentin K GribkoffDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT 06520, USA. Electronic address: valentin.gribkoff@yale.edu.
Leonard K KaczmarekDepartment of Pharmacology, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT 06520, USA; Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
Yale University · US

Funding

EXPRESSION OF ION CHANNELS IN THE AUDITORY SYSTEMR01DC001919 · NIDCD · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI KACZMAREK, LEONARD K · 1993 to 2025
$9.7M
STRUCTURE/FUNCTION OF SLO CHANNELSP01NS042202 · NINDS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI KACZMAREK, LEONARD K · 2001 to 2005
$7.4M
Cellular regulation of Sodium-activated Ion ChannelsR01HD067517 · NICHD · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI KACZMAREK, LEONARD K · 2011 to 2015
$1.7M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD067517NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC001919NINDS NIH HHS P01 NS042202
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An important goal of biomedical research is to translate basic research findings into useful medical advances. In the field of neuropharmacology this requires understanding disease mechanisms as well as the effects of drugs and other compounds on neuronal function. Our hope is that this information will result in new or improved treatment for CNS disease. Despite great progress in our understanding of the structure and functions of the CNS, the discovery of new drugs and their clinical development for many CNS disorders has been problematic. As a result, CNS drug discovery and development programs have been subjected to significant cutbacks and eliminations over the last decade. While there has been recent resurgence of interest in CNS targets, these past changes in priority of the pharmaceutical and biotech industries reflect several well-documented realities. CNS drugs in general have higher failure rates than non-CNS drugs, both preclinically and clinically, and in some areas, such as the major neurodegenerative diseases, the clinical failure rate for disease-modifying treatments has been 100%. The development times for CNS drugs are significantly longer for those drugs that are approved, and post-development regulatory review is longer. In this introduction we review some of the reasons for failure, delineating both scientific and technical realities, some unique to the CNS, that have contributed to this. We will focus on major neurodegenerative disorders, which affect millions, attract most of the headlines, and yet have witnessed the fewest successes. We will suggest some changes that, when coupled with the approaches discussed in the rest of this special volume, may improve outcomes in future CNS-targeted drug discovery and development efforts. This article is part of the Special Issue entitled "Beyond small molecules for neurological disorders".

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDrug DiscoveryAnimalsCentral Nervous System AgentsCentral Nervous System DiseasesHumansCentral Nervous System AgentsCNS clinical trialsCNS drug development

Identifiers

PMID26979921
PMCPMC5820030
OpenAlexW2299350316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.