4 ms·
For anyone wondering about what's wrong with mouse testing, here is a funny but informative video on the subject[1]. One highlight: >After a drug is confirmed
by ainar-g 8y ago
For anyone wondering about what's wrong with mouse testing, here is a funny but informative video on the subject[1]. One highlight:
>After a drug is confirmed as safe and efficacious in preclinical studies, it is tested in healthy human volunteers for first in man trials. In 2006, a phase I clinical study was conducted for a CD28 superagonist antibody TGN1412 in six human volunteers. After very first infusion of a dose 500 times smaller than that found safe in animal studies, all six human volunteers faced life-threatening conditions involving multiorgan failure for which they were moved to intensive care unit
Source[2].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvJHq2FJPDM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvJHq2FJPDM
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964774/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964774/
- Angostura 8y agoWhich shows that mice are an imperfect model, not that they don't have substantial value.
- anoncoward111 8y agoRight? It's like, "Woman dies from water overdosw during radio contest, therefore all water consumption is at very least unhealthy"
- DannyBee 8y agoI believe it concludes that while 500x lower, 0.1mg would bind 85-98% of all possible CD28 receptors -meaning that "small" dose would have shown the maximum effect of the drug.