↓ Skip to main content

Exon skipping for Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
patent
5 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Exon skipping for Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13023-018-0834-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuko Shimizu-Motohashi, Terumi Murakami, En Kimura, Hirofumi Komaki, Norio Watanabe

Abstract

Exon skipping has been considered a promising therapeutic approach for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Eteplirsen received conditional approval in the United States in 2016. To date, no systematic reviews or meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of exon skipping drugs have been published to determine the pooled estimates for the effect of exon skipping in treating DMD. A systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind RCTs comparing exon-skipping drugs with placebo in DMD was performed. Trials were identified by searching published and unpublished studies from electronically available databases and clinical trial registries through October 2017. The primary outcomes were changes in the 6-min walk test (6MWT) distance, North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) scores, and adverse events. Random-effects meta-analysis and assessment of risk of bias were performed. This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42016037504). Five studies involving 322 participants were included, investigating eteplirsen in one and drisapersen in four studies. There were no changes in 6MWT distance (mean difference [MD] - 9.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 21.94 to 3.62) or NSAA scores (MD 1.20, 95% CI - 2.35 to 4.75) after 24 weeks of treatment in the exon-skipping group compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis for a 6 mg/kg weekly injection of drisapersen showed significant changes in the 6MWT, favoring drisapersen after 24 weeks (MD - 20.24; 95% CI - 39.59 to - 0.89). However, drisapersen resulted in a significant increase in injection site reactions (risk ratio [RR] 3.67, 95% CI 1.96 to 6.89, p < 0.0001) and renal toxicity (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.94, p = 0.02). Risk of bias was high in two of the five studies, including the eteplirsen and one drisapersen study. Current available data do not show evidence that exon-skipping drugs are effective in DMD. Despite potential effectiveness when used at a specific dose, significant side effects were reported with drisapersen. The small number of RCTs with relatively small numbers of participants indicate the difficulty in conducting sufficiently powered studies of DMD. Prospectively planned meta-analysis and utilization of the real-world data may provide a more precise estimate of the effect of exon skipping in this disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Master 9 8%
Other 6 6%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 31 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Other 24 22%
Unknown 31 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 19 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,946,026
of 24,727,020 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#401
of 2,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,786
of 334,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#7
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,727,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,965 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 334,241 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.