ArticlePharmaceutics2023
An Innovative Tool for Evidence-Based, Personalized Treatment Trials in Mucopolysaccharidosis.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Parental perception of treatment options for mucopolysaccharidosis: a survey to bridge the gap for personalized medicine.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- Development of a novel tool for individual treatment trials in mucopolysaccharidosis.Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-11-07Concerns/Issues about Data · Error in Analyses · Error in Results and/or Conclusions · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Lack of Approval from Company/Institution · Unreliable Data ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) is a group of rare metabolic diseases associated with reduced life expectancy and a substantial unmet medical need. Immunomodulatory drugs could be a relevant treatment approach for MPS patients, although they are not licensed for this population. Therefore, we aim to provide evidence justifying fast access to innovative individual treatment trials (ITTs) with immunomodulators and a high-quality evaluation of drug effects by implementing a risk-benefit model for MPS. The iterative methodology of our developed decision analysis framework (DAF) consists of the following steps: (i) a comprehensive literature analysis on promising treatment targets and immunomodulators for MPS; (ii) a quantitative risk-benefit assessment (RBA) of selected molecules; and (iii) allocation phenotypic profiles and a quantitative assessment. These steps allow for the personalized use of the model and are in accordance with expert and patient representatives. The following four promising immunomodulators were identified: adalimumab, abatacept, anakinra, and cladribine. An improvement in mobility is most likely with adalimumab, while anakinra might be the treatment of choice for patients with neurocognitive involvement. Nevertheless, a RBA should always be completed on an individual basis. Our evidence-based DAF model for ITTs directly addresses the substantial unmet medical need in MPS and characterizes a first approach toward precision medicine with immunomodulatory drugs.
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.