4.5 Article

A perspective on cure for Rett syndrome

期刊

ORPHANET JOURNAL OF RARE DISEASES
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-018-0786-6

关键词

MECP2; Rett syndrome; Cure; Expectations; Gene therapy; Gene editing; Symptomatic treatment; Quality of life

资金

  1. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH-NIH) [1R01AT008632-01]
  2. Neurolixis Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The reversal of the Rett syndrome disease process in the Mecp2 mouse model of Guy et al. (2007) has motivated families and researchers to work on this condition. The reversibility in adult mice suggests that there is potentially much to be gained from rational treatments applied to patients of any age. However, it may be difficult to strike the right balance between enthusiasm on the one hand and realism on the other. One effect of this has been a fragmentation of the Rett syndrome community with some groups giving priority to work aimed at a cure while fewer resources are devoted to medical or therapy-based interventions to enhance the quality of life of affected patients or provide support for their families. Several possible therapeutic approaches are under development that, it is claimed and hoped, may lead to a cure for patients with Rett syndrome. While all have a rationale, there are potential obstacles to each being both safe and effective. Furthermore, any strategy that succeeded in restoring normal levels of MECP2 gene expression throughout the brain carries potential pitfalls, so that it will be of crucial importance to introduce any clinical trials of such therapies with great care. Expectations of families for a radical, rational treatment should not be inflated beyond a cautious optimism. This is particularly because affected patients with us now may not be able to reap the full benefits of a cure. Thus, interventions aimed at enhancing the quality of life of affected patients should not be forgone and their importance should not be minimised.

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

4.5
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