↓ Skip to main content

The TREAT-NMD advisory committee for therapeutics (TACT): an innovative de-risking model to foster orphan drug development

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The TREAT-NMD advisory committee for therapeutics (TACT): an innovative de-risking model to foster orphan drug development
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13023-015-0258-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma Heslop, Cristina Csimma, Volker Straub, John McCall, Kanneboyina Nagaraju, Kathryn R Wagner, Didier Caizergues, Rudolf Korinthenberg, Kevin M Flanigan, Petra Kaufmann, Elizabeth McNeil, Jerry Mendell, Sharon Hesterlee, Dominic J Wells, Kate Bushby

Abstract

Despite multiple publications on potential therapies for neuromuscular diseases (NMD) in cell and animal models only a handful reach clinical trials. The ability to prioritise drug development according to objective criteria is particularly critical in rare diseases with large unmet needs and a limited numbers of patients who can be enrolled into clinical trials. TREAT-NMD Advisory Committee for Therapeutics (TACT) was established to provide independent and objective guidance on the preclinical and development pathway of potential therapies (whether novel or repurposed) for NMD.We present our experience in the establishment and operation of the TACT. TACT provides a unique resource of recognized experts from multiple disciplines. The goal of each TACT review is to help the sponsor to position the candidate compound along a realistic and well-informed plan to clinical trials, and eventual registration. The reviews and subsequent recommendations are focused on generating meaningful and rigorous data that can enable clear go/no-go decisions and facilitate longer term funding or partnering opportunities. The review process thereby acts to comment on viability, de-risking the process of proceeding on a development programme.To date TACT has held 10 review meeting and reviewed 29 program applications in several rare neuromuscular diseases: Of the 29 programs reviewed, 19 were from industry and 10 were from academia; 15 were for novel compounds and 14 were for repurposed drugs; 16 were small molecules and 13 were biologics; 14 were preclinical stage applications and 15were clinical stage applications. 3 had received Orphan drug designation from European Medicines Agency and 3 from Food and Drug Administration. A number of recurrent themes emerged over the course of the reviews and we found that applicants frequently require advice and education on issues concerned with preclinical standard operating procedures, interactions with regulatory agencies, formulation, repurposing, clinical trial design, manufacturing and ethics.Over the 5 years since its establishment TACT has amassed a body of experience that can be extrapolated to other groups of rare diseases to improve the community's chances of successfully bringing new rare disease drugs to registration and ultimately to market.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 59 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 7%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 15 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,495,630
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#148
of 2,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,581
of 265,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#3
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,615 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.