ReviewClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
Translational Paradox of Triplet Repeat Expansion Disorders: Synthesizing Clinical Trial Failures to Guide Future Therapeutics.
Review in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The comprehensive understanding of triplet repeat expansion (TRE) disorders as monogenic neurodegenerative diseases presents a fundamental challenge for developing treatments capable of modifying the disease course, as neurogenetic research indicates. The past 30 years reveal that preclinical results demonstrating strong effectiveness have not translated into success in human clinical trials, with multiple phase II and III studies for polyglutamine and non-coding, loss-of-function repeat disorders yielding unfavorable outcomes. This review emphasizes that clinical systems, which measure target engagement do not generate effective outcomes for these TRE neurodegenerative conditions. We highlight that these failures arise not from a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying genetic mutations, but from recurring methodological and pharmacological limitations across the translational pipeline. The main reasons for these unsuccessful clinical trials include two factors: the necessity for clinicians to monitor pharmacodynamic biomarkers indicating central nervous system target engagement, and the reliance on traditional clinical rating scales that linearly assess disease progression in patients with complex medical conditions. The use of non-selective gene silencing methods can lead to unexpected toxic effects, especially when treatments begin after patients reach an advanced disease stage, causing irreversible brain cell damage. The field of precision neurogenetics must advocate for future trials to employ objective fluid and digital biomarkers, utilize allele-specific treatments, and prioritize patients who have not yet experienced severe brain cell loss. We further propose evidence-based design principles to improve the probability of clinical success in future TRE disease trials.
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.