ReviewPaediatric drugs2025
A New Perspective on Drugs for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: Proposals for Better Respiratory Outcomes and Improved Regulatory Pathways.
Review in Paediatric drugs, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Anesthetic Management of Patients With Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.Pediatric pulmonology · 2026Review
- Establishing polysomnographic criteria for initiation of non-invasive ventilation in children with neuromuscular diseases.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2026Article
- The importance of better natural history studies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2025Article
- Current Standards and Future Directions of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Respiratory Care: The PPMD Italy Meeting Report.Pediatric pulmonology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New drugs for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) are emerging rapidly. However, we and others believe these drugs are achieving regulatory approval prematurely. It is the cardiorespiratory complications of DMD that cause the disease's major morbidities and that determine survival. Thus, to be truly effective, a new drug must improve cardiorespiratory function; instead, new drugs are approved for patient use via accelerated regulatory pathways that rely on surrogate outcome measures with unproven clinical benefits (such as tissue levels of non-biologic, truncated dystrophin) and on scales that reflect muscle strength (such as small improvements in timed activities). In DMD, cardiorespiratory complications occur in "older" individuals who are in the non-ambulatory stage of the disease. In contrast, accelerated approvals are based on data from young, ambulatory subjects, a group that essentially never experiences cardiorespiratory complications. When drug studies do obtain cardiorespiratory data, their methodologies are suboptimal. We critically review these methodologies in detail, including problems with the use of threshold levels of respiratory function as outcome measures; problems with the use of historical controls, whose results vary widely, and are influenced by uncontrolled variables related to their observational nature; and the limitations of using percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC %pred), and its single rate of decline across a wide range of age and function, as a preferred respiratory outcome measure. We discuss the advantages of an alternative respiratory outcome, the absolute value of FVC with aging (the "Rideau plot"). Unlike FVC %pred, the Rideau plot considers distinct phenotypes rather than aggregating all individuals into a single respiratory trajectory. Key features of the Rideau plot can show the nature and timing of a drug's effect on respiratory function, making it a potentially better outcome measure for assessing the respiratory effects of a drug. With this article, we use our respiratory perspective to critically examine the DMD drug development process and to propose improvements in study methodologies and in the regulatory processes that approve new 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.