4.7 Article

Evaluation of serum MMP-9 as predictive biomarker for antisense therapy in Duchenne

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-17982-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. AFM [17724]
  2. EU [241665, 305121, 305444]
  3. ProNova VINN Excellence Centre for Protein Technology (VINNOVA, Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems)
  4. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  5. Medical Research Council (MRC) Centre for Neuromuscular Diseases Biobanks (Newcastle) part of EuroBioBank
  6. Medical Research Council (MRC) Centre for Neuromuscular Diseases Biobanks (London) are part of EuroBioBank
  7. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0515-10022] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) is a severe muscle disorder caused by lack of dystrophin. Predictive biomarkers able to anticipate response to the therapeutic treatments aiming at dystrophin re-expression are lacking. The objective of this study is to investigate Matrix Metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) as predictive biomarker for Duchenne. Two natural history cohorts were studied including 168 longitudinal samples belonging to 66 patients. We further studied 1536 samples obtained from 3 independent clinical trials with drisapersen, an antisense oligonucleotide targeting exon 51: an open label study including 12 patients; a phase 3 randomized, double blind, placebo controlled study involving 186 patients; an open label extension study performed after the phase 3. Analysis of natural history cohorts showed elevated MMP-9 levels in patients and a significant increase over time in longitudinal samples. MMP-9 decreased in parallel to clinical stabilization in the 12 patients involved in the open label study. The phase 3 study and subsequent extension study clarified that the decrease in MMP-9 levels was not predictive of treatment response. These data do not support the inclusion of serum MMP-9 as predictive biomarker for DMD patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据