Posted by zeugma on May 1, 2006, at 16:55:07
In reply to Animal models of psychiatric illness, posted by ed_uk on May 1, 2006, at 16:36:15
I'm not convinced of the value of these 'animal models of depression'. >>
it's a good thing to be skeptical :-)
I think they're very silly actually. Interesting, but silly.>>
they were a practical necessity early in the history of psychotropic drug development, before neural 'targets' were identified. and the targets were identified on the basis of compounds that were either discovered by accident (e.g. imipramine) or by means of behavioral tests (e.g. modafinil- they still don't know what its neural 'targets' are). so our knowledge is still shreds in a sea of ignorance. i would not dismiss the animal models, because they have given rise to all the DAT KO and null orexin mice, which have, in fact, given us insights into the etiology of disease states. not that much insight, but then we are working blind anyway when it comes to CNS disorders.
>>Honestly, who comes up with these ideas! Human depression is a complex phenomenon which cannot be replicated in a rat. The sooner scientists realise that animal experiments are *not* very useful the better. Large well-designed clinical trials in *humans* are the only studies which are really valuable in determining drug efficacy. Such trials are expensive but immensely useful.>>
they are useful but how 'well-designed' are industry-sponsored trials? well-designed to demonstrate that the new drug is as efficacious as amitriptyline without causing constipation.
i'll make an exception for studies in which both comparotors are off patent. one can be sure of freedom from industry bias there. unfortunately, such studies are necessarily smaller because no corporation backs these.
on the other hand rats are cheap and don't respond to placebo (we assume).
-z
poster:zeugma
thread:638491
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060429/msgs/638867.html