Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26306629›Full record

ArticleBMC neurology2015

Improving clinical trial design for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Luciano Merlini, Patrizia Sabatelli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Viltolarsen in Japanese Duchenne muscular dystrophy patients: A phase 1/2 study.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2020
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Stem cell therapy for muscular dystrophies.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2020
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Luciano MerliniLaboratory of Musculoskeletal Cell Biology, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, IRCCS, Via Di Barbiano 1/10, 40136, Bologna, Italy. luciano.merlini@ior.it.
Patrizia SabatelliLaboratory of Musculoskeletal Cell Biology, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, IRCCS, Via Di Barbiano 1/10, 40136, Bologna, Italy. sabatelli@area.bo.cnr.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, the most promising therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) are exon skipping and stop codon read-through, two strategies aimed at restoring the expression of dystrophin. A phase 3 clinical trial with drisapersen, a drug designed to induce exon 51-skipping, has failed to show significant improvement of the primary outcome measure, the six-minute walk test. DISCUSSION: Here, we review some key points that should be considered when designing clinical trials for these new therapies. First, younger patients have more functional abilities and more muscle fibers to preserve than older patients and therefore are better subjects for trials designed to demonstrate the success of new treatments. Second, the inclusion of patients on corticosteroids both in the treatment and placebo groups is of concern because the positive effect of corticosteroids might mask the effect of the treatment being tested. Additionally, the reasonable expectation from these therapies is the slowing of disease progression rather than improvement. Therefore, the appropriate clinical endpoints are the prolongation of the ability to stand from the floor, climb stairs, and walk, not an increase in muscle strength or function. Hence, the time frames for the detection of new dystrophin, which occurs within months, and the ability to demonstrate a slowing of disease progression, which requires years, are strikingly different. Finally, placebo-controlled trials are difficult to manage if years of blindness are required to demonstrate a slowing of disease progression. Thus, accelerated/conditional approval for new therapies should be based on surrogate biochemical outcomes: the demonstration of de novo dystrophin production and of its beneficial effect on the functional recovery of muscle fiber. These data suggest that clinical trials for DMD patients must be adapted to the particular characteristics of the disease in order to demonstrate the expected positive effect of new treatments.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementResearch DesignAdrenal Cortex HormonesClinical Trials as TopicDisease ProgressionDrug Therapy, CombinationDystrophinExonsHumansMaleMuscle StrengthMuscular Dystrophy, DuchenneOligonucleotidesTreatment OutcomeWalkingAdrenal Cortex HormonesDystrophinOligonucleotidesPRO051

Identifiers

PMID26306629
PMCPMC4549867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.