↓ Skip to main content

Improving clinical trial design for Duchenne muscular dystrophy

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, August 2015
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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Improving clinical trial design for Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Published in
BMC Neurology, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12883-015-0408-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luciano Merlini, Patrizia Sabatelli

Abstract

Currently, the most promising therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) are exon skipping and stop codon read-through, two strategies aimed at restoring the expression of dystrophin. A phase 3 clinical trial with drisapersen, a drug designed to induce exon 51-skipping, has failed to show significant improvement of the primary outcome measure, the six-minute walk test. Here, we review some key points that should be considered when designing clinical trials for these new therapies. First, younger patients have more functional abilities and more muscle fibers to preserve than older patients and therefore are better subjects for trials designed to demonstrate the success of new treatments. Second, the inclusion of patients on corticosteroids both in the treatment and placebo groups is of concern because the positive effect of corticosteroids might mask the effect of the treatment being tested. Additionally, the reasonable expectation from these therapies is the slowing of disease progression rather than improvement. Therefore, the appropriate clinical endpoints are the prolongation of the ability to stand from the floor, climb stairs, and walk, not an increase in muscle strength or function. Hence, the time frames for the detection of new dystrophin, which occurs within months, and the ability to demonstrate a slowing of disease progression, which requires years, are strikingly different. Finally, placebo-controlled trials are difficult to manage if years of blindness are required to demonstrate a slowing of disease progression. Thus, accelerated/conditional approval for new therapies should be based on surrogate biochemical outcomes: the demonstration of de novo dystrophin production and of its beneficial effect on the functional recovery of muscle fiber. These data suggest that clinical trials for DMD patients must be adapted to the particular characteristics of the disease in order to demonstrate the expected positive effect of new treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Brazil 2 2%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 79 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 21%
Student > Master 15 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 14 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 October 2022.
All research outputs
#3,767,342
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#457
of 2,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,344
of 268,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#14
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 268,876 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.