4.6 Review

Combined Therapies for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy to Optimize Treatment Efficacy

期刊

FRONTIERS IN GENETICS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2018.00114

关键词

gene therapy; cell therapy; muscle; Duchenne muscular dystrophy; dystrophin; fibrosis; inflammation; atrophy

资金

  1. Centre National pour la Recherche Scientifique
  2. Association Francaise contre les Myopathies [17110]
  3. University Paris VI Pierre et Marie Curie
  4. Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale
  5. ECOS-CONICYT program [C16S02]
  6. Fondecyt [1161646]
  7. Millennium Institute on Immunology and Immunotherapy [P09-016-F]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Duchene Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) is the most frequent muscular dystrophy and one of the most severe due to the absence of the dystrophin protein. Typical pathological features include muscle weakness, muscle wasting, degeneration, and inflammation. At advanced stages DMD muscles present exacerbated extracellular matrix and fat accumulation. Recent progress in therapeutic approaches has allowed new strategies to be investigated, including pharmacological, gene-based and cell-based therapies. Gene and cell-based therapies are still limited by poor targeting and low efficiency in fibrotic dystrophic muscle, therefore it is increasingly evident that future treatments will have to include combined therapies to reach maximal efficiency. The scope of this mini-review is to provide an overview of the current literature on such combined therapies for DMD. By combined therapies we mean those that include both a therapy to correct the genetic defect and an additional one to address one of the secondary pathological features of the disease. In this mini-review, we will not provide a comprehensive view of the literature on therapies for DMD, since many such reviews already exist, but we will focus on the characteristics, efficiency, and potential of such combined therapeutic strategies that have been described so far for DMD.

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

4.6
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