Once-Promising Stroke Drug Fails in Trial
Wednesday, August 8, 2007; 12:00 AM
WEDNESDAY, Aug. 8 (HealthDay News) -- An experimental, emergency-use stroke drug that gave patients a modest but definite benefit in one trial has shown no effect at all in a new trial.
The outcome is puzzling the international team of physicians who reported the new results for the drug, called NXY-059, in the Aug. 9 issue of theNew England Journal of Medicine.
Right now, "we consider that the disparity between the two studies occurred by chance," concluded the researchers.
"There is a 5 percent chance of a false-positive result in any clinical trial," noted study co-researcher Dr. Kennedy R. Lees, professor of cerebrovascular medicine at the University of Glasgow in Scotland.
He was referring to the results of a trial reported in 2005 in which NXY-059 gave more protection against stroke damage to the brain than the existing standard treatment, tissue plasminogen activator (tPA). In the earlier trial, the experimental agent was also effective when given as long as six hours after a stroke. tPA has a much smaller window of effectiveness, about three hours.
"The likelihood that our previous trial was positive simply because of the play of chance underscores the need for replication by a second pivotal trial," the journal report said.
However, another of the study's researchers said that may not happen.
When two studies produce conflicting results, the larger one is more likely to be correct, said Dr. Patrick Leyden, director of the University of California, San Diego/Veterans Administration Stroke Center. "It has a better chance of avoiding statistical flukes."
Leyden said that, because of the negative results of the second trial, "the development of the drug has been ended."
The newly reported trial included more than 3,300 people treated for ischemic stroke, in which a clot blocks a brain blood vessel.
It found no difference in end results, such as stroke-linked disability, between those patients who got NXY-059 and those who did not.
But there is another theory afloat to explain the disparity in findings -- that the version of the drug used in the second trial was somewhat different than that used in the first trial. One proponent of that theory is Dr. Peter H. Proctor, a physician with no academic affiliation, who is engaged in pharmaceutical research. He noted that some patents that he holds do give him a financial interest in the matter.