ReviewMolecular therapy. Nucleic acids2025
Tailored antisense oligonucleotides for ultrarare CNS diseases: An experience-based best practice framework for individual patient evaluation.
Review in Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Individualized antisense oligonucleotide treatment eligibility of patients living with neurodevelopmental diseases.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Review
- Safety and toxicity assessment of antisense oligonucleotides in brain-relevant human cellular models.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2026Review
- RNA-based therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease and related tauopathies: challenges and opportunities.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2026Review
- Guidance on communication and informed consent with patients and their families for experimental individualized treatments.American journal of human genetics · 2026Review
- Implicit ethical choices in ultra-rare therapy development: researchers' perspectives on patient selection and communication, therapy value, and accessibility.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- The impact of antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) therapeutics on the future of rare disease drug discovery.Expert opinion on drug discovery · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Individualized mutation-specific RNA therapies offer promise, in particular, for individuals with ultrarare neurological diseases that affect only few families or even single patients worldwide. Outside traditional drug development pathways, however, clinicians and scientists face the challenge of systematically evaluating whether individual patients with severe ultrarare diseases might be eligible for and potentially benefit from such approaches. This complex evaluation involves biological, clinical, psychological, and ethical aspects. Based on the experience of the 1 Mutation 1 Medicine (1M1M) consortium, we here propose a best practice framework that enables the systematic evaluation of individual patients for tailored genomic therapies, using transparent criteria to comprehensively assess each individual's benefit-risk balance. By example of individually tailored antisense oligonucleotide approaches in neurology, this framework takes into account characteristics of the (1) underlying variant, (2) underlying disease, and (3) individual patient. It thereby allows a systematic, balanced, fact-based evaluation that appreciates the full complexity and preferences of each individual patient, performed by a multi-stakeholder treatment board. This operational framework will thus pave the way for systematic, rational patient-centric evaluation and decision-making in the rapidly evolving field of individualized "n-of-1" precision genomic medicine in clinical neurology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.