4.3 Review

Developments in reading frame restoring therapy approaches for Duchenne muscular dystrophy

Journal

EXPERT OPINION ON BIOLOGICAL THERAPY
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 343-359

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14712598.2021.1832462

Keywords

Duchenne muscular dystrophy; exon skipping; antisense oligonucleotide; genome editing; therapy; clinical trials; personalized medicine

Funding

  1. Duchenne Parent Project (Netherlands)
  2. Sarepta Therapeutics
  3. Charlie's Fund
  4. Spieren voor Spieren (Netherlands)
  5. Duchenne UK
  6. Horizon 2020 (BIND) [847826]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Three AONS have been approved, but the sufficiency of dystrophin levels to slow down disease progression needs further confirmation. Current research is focusing on improving muscle uptake of AONs, as well as exploring gene editing as an alternative method.
Introduction Exon skipping compounds restoring the dystrophin transcript reading frame have received regulatory approval for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Recently, focus shifted to developing compounds to skip additional exons, improving delivery to skeletal muscle, and to genome editing, to restore the reading frame on DNA level. Areas covered We outline developments for reading frame restoring approaches, challenges of mutation specificity, and optimizing delivery. Also, we highlight ongoing efforts to better detect exon skipping therapeutic effects in clinical trials. Searches on relevant terms were performed, focusing on recent publications (<3 years). Expert opinion Currently, 3 AONS are approved. Whether dystrophin levels are sufficient to slowdown disease progression needs to be confirmed. Enhancing AON uptake by muscles is currently under investigation. Gene editing is an alternative, but one that involves practical and ethical concerns. Given the field's momentum, we believe the efficiency of frame-restoring approaches will improve.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available