SynthesisEBioMedicine2024
Which experimental factors govern successful animal-to-human translation in multiple sclerosis drug development? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in EBioMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Infection control in the brain and the eye.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Review
- We need less animal research, better animal research, and animal research done for the right reasons.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- To include or not to include? A prescription from the pharmacy on how to use active learning-assisted screening in systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- A Standardized Unpredictable Chronic Stress Protocol for Adult Zebrafish.Current protocols · 2026Article
- Modulating glutamate neurotransmission inFrontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Cisplatin-Induced Skeletal Muscle Atrophy: Biomolecular Mechanisms and the Protective Role of Exercise-Induced Myokines.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- How long does it take to complete and publish a systematic review of animal studies?BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Quality, topics, and demographic trends of animal systematic reviews - an umbrella review.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite successes in multiple sclerosis (MS) drug development, the effectiveness of animal studies in predicting successful bench-to-bedside translation is uncertain. Our goal was to identify predictors of successful animal-to-human translation for MS by systematically comparing animal studies of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) with those that failed in clinical trials due to efficacy or safety concerns.
methodsSystematic review of animal studies testing MS DMTs, identified from searches in PubMed and EMBASE. A random effect meta-analysis was fitted to the data to compare outcome effect sizes for approved versus failed DMTs. Effect sizes and testing under diverse experimental conditions were assessed as potential predictors for successful translation.
findingsWe included 497 animal studies, covering 15 approved and 11 failed DMTs, tested in approximately 30'000 animals. DMTs were tested in a small repertoire of experimental parameters: about 86% of studies used experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), 80% used mice, and 76% used female animals. There was no association between animal study outcomes or testing DMTs under varied conditions (e.g., different laboratories or models) and successful approval. Surprisingly, 91% of animal studies were published after first-in-MS trial and 91% after official regulatory approval.
interpretationOur findings emphasize the complexity in carrying drugs from animals to clinical practice. Specific challenges include limited experimental methods in animal research and a disconnect between preclinical and clinical research. We advocate for efforts to streamline drug development for MS to improve animal research's relevance for patients.
fundingNIH, Swiss National Science Foundation, Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.