ReviewDer Nervenarzt2022
[Gene-based treatment in spinal muscular atrophy].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gene replacement therapy in spinal muscular atrophy: filling the data gaps.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 5q-associated spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) affects ~ 80-120 newborns annually. The disease is characterized by progressive paresis involving the bulbar and respiratory musculatures. The phenotypes are very heterogeneous ranging from severe courses with early death in the first years of life to loss of gait in older age.
objectiveThere are now an increasing number of causally targeted therapies available that can either directly interfere with the transcription of the gene causing the disease or replace the homozygous loss of the SMN1 gene. This work aims to elucidate the current state of therapy in different groups of patients with SMA. MATERIAL AND
methodsPresentation of clinical trials and basic studies with a focus on patients with disease onset in adulthood.
resultsThe clinical studies all show improvement or stabilization of motor function; however, in individual cases, the burden of the therapy for severely immobilized patients must be considered in addition to the efficacy in the treatment decision. Even if the drugs show a good safety profile, observations on the long-term efficacy and safety of the new substance classes are still lacking.
conclusionThe study landscape shows a good efficacy of the currently approved therapies across all degrees of severity and age groups. Due to the lack of comparative studies, the decision on the appropriate therapy should therefore be made according to an individual risk-benefit assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.