ReviewNature reviews. Neurology2026
Ten years of disease-modifying therapy in spinal muscular atrophy: lessons learned and future directions.
Review in Nature reviews. Neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is an autosomal recessive disease caused by deletions or mutations in the SMN1 gene, leading to loss of motor neurons with subsequent muscle atrophy and weakness. The disease is characterized by progression in weakness and loss of function that is only partially reduced by improved standards of care. The advent of three new therapies has dramatically changed the natural history of all SMA subtypes, including the severe and advanced type I SMA. As the first drug was approved in 2016, these therapies have been available for a decade, with a rapidly increasing collection of data demonstrating their safety and efficacy in a range of clinical trials and in the real-world setting. We critically review how the field has evolved in response to the new therapies, the long-term follow-up and the emergence of new phenotypes, and the outcome of initiating these therapies in presymptomatic individuals identified via newborn screening programmes. We also review the challenges related to the interpretation of long-term outcomes once placebo-control data end, as well as the difficulties in making decisions and interpreting the results of sequential and combinatorial therapies. Finally, we review the evolution of the existing therapies, such as intrathecal gene therapy instead of its intravenous administration, or the higher dose intrathecal antisense oligonucleotide nusinersen, and new therapeutic approaches currently being studied in clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42310398What 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.