↓ Skip to main content

Preclinical Toxicity Evaluation of AAV for Pain: Evidence from Human AAV Studies and from the Pharmacology of Analgesic Drugs

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Pain, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Preclinical Toxicity Evaluation of AAV for Pain: Evidence from Human AAV Studies and from the Pharmacology of Analgesic Drugs
Published in
Molecular Pain, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1744-8069-10-54
Pubmed ID
Authors

Josef Pleticha, Lukas F Heilmann, Christopher H Evans, Aravind Asokan, Richard Jude Samulski, Andreas S Beutler

Abstract

Gene therapy with adeno-associated virus (AAV) has advanced in the last few years from promising results in animal models to >100 clinical trials (reported or under way). While vector availability was a substantial hurdle a decade ago, innovative new production methods now routinely match the scale of AAV doses required for clinical testing. These advances may become relevant to translational research in the chronic pain field. AAV for pain targeting the peripheral nervous system was proven to be efficacious in rodent models several years ago, but has not yet been tested in humans. The present review addresses the steps needed for translation of AAV for pain from the bench to the bedside focusing on pre-clinical toxicology. We break the potential toxicities into three conceptual categories of risk: First, risks related to the delivery procedure used to administer the vector. Second, risks related to AAV biology, i.e., effects of the vector itself that may occur independently of the transgene. Third, risks related to the effects of the therapeutic transgene. To identify potential toxicities, we consulted the existing evidence from AAV gene therapy for other nervous system disorders (animal toxicology and human studies) and from the clinical pharmacology of conventional analgesic drugs. Thereby, we identified required preclinical studies and charted a hypothetical path towards a future phase I/II clinical trial in the oncology-palliative care setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
Unknown 72 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 9 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 16%
Neuroscience 11 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 11%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 10 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2015.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Pain
#595
of 669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,461
of 319,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Pain
#51
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.