Abstract
PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Drug trials of the central nervous system(CNS) have been plagued with uninformative failures, often because of the difficulties of knowing definitively whether dosing achieved was sufficient to modulate the intended CNS target at adequate concentrations to produce pharmacodynamic or dose-related changes in readouts of brain function. Key design elements can be introduced into early-stage trials to get at this issue. METHODS/PROCEDURES: This commentary builds on a review of earlier clinical studies in Fragile X syndrome to explore the extent to which the chain of evidence is in place to allow for interpretation of the results as ruling in or out the utility of modulating one or another molecular target to treat this disorder. Recent and current biomarker studies in Fragile X syndrome occurring subsequent to the clinical studies are reviewed to see if they might address any chain of evidence gaps. FINDINGS/RESULTS: Despite the strong preclinical basis for targeting molecular mechanisms, the lack of efficacy seen in clinical studies remains uninterpretable, with regard to ruling in or out the utility of targeting the mechanism in a clinical population, given the absence of studies, which address whether doses of administered drug impacted the targeted brain mechanism. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: The value of pursuing clinical studies of compounds targeted to novel mechanisms in the absence of clinical pharmacological evidence of some anticipated mediating pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic signals is questionable. One or more biomarkers of a drug effect on brain function are needed to establish dose dependent CNS effects that allow one to interpret clinical results as ruling in or out a mechanism and providing a firm basis for continuing or not, as well as informing dose selection in any clinical efficacy trials. Initiatives to address this general need in pediatric psychopharmacology are highlighted.