Skip to content

NotablePeer-reviewed

Safety and efficacy of delpacibart zotadirsen in Duchenne muscular dystrophy mutations amenable to exon 44 skipping in the USA (EXPLORE44): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 1/2 trial

ByAravindhan Veerapandiyan, Jamie Eskuri, Chamindra G. Laverty, Craig M. McDonald, Han C. Phan, Edward C. Smith and 2 others

Arkansas Children's Hospital · University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences · Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare · University of California San Diego and 4 more

What it is

No exon-skipping therapy is approved for Duchenne muscular dystrophy caused by DMD variants amenable to exon 44 skipping (DMD44). Delpacibart zotadirsen (del-zota, also known as AOC 1044) is a first-in-class antibody-oligonucleotide conjugate designed to carry an exon 44-skipping morpholino oligomer into muscle and restore dystrophin expression in people with DMD44. EXPLORE44 was its first-in-human trial, a two-part randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1/2 study at ten US sites, in healthy adult men aged 18-55 (part A) and in ambulatory and non-ambulatory male participants with DMD44 aged 7-27 (part B), with part B's dosing informed by part A. Between December 2022 and June 2024, 45 healthy volunteers and 26 men and boys with DMD44 were enrolled and randomly assigned; in part B, 9 received del-zota at 5 mg/kg every 6 weeks, 10 at 10 mg/kg every 8 weeks and 7 placebo, with a mean age of 13.3 years. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. 16 of the 19 participants given del-zota reported at least one adverse event, as did 6 of the 7 on placebo, most of them mild or moderate; 2 participants, both at 5 mg/kg, discontinued after an anaphylactic reaction and an infusion-related reaction. Exon 44 skipping rose from baseline by 36.6% at 5 mg/kg and 43.4% at 10 mg/kg against 1.6% with placebo, and dystrophin levels by 25.0% and 25.6% against -0.7%. The authors conclude that del-zota had an acceptable safety profile, produced increases in exon 44 skipping and dystrophin expression and decreased biomarkers of muscle damage, supporting a phase 3 study. The trial was funded by Avidity Biosciences, A Novartis Company.

Why it matters

In a trial of 26 men and boys with a form of Duchenne muscular dystrophy that has no approved exon-skipping therapy, a first-in-human drug raised dystrophin by about 25%. Duchenne is caused by variants in the dystrophin gene, and for the subset amenable to exon 44 skipping no exon-skipping therapy has been approved. Del-zota is an antibody-oligonucleotide conjugate meant to carry its oligomer into muscle; in this phase 1/2 trial exon 44 skipping rose 36.6% at the lower dose and 43.4% at the higher, against 1.6% on placebo, and the authors report an acceptable safety profile with most adverse events mild or moderate. They say the findings support a phase 3 study to assess efficacy and long-term safety.

Underlined numbers link to their source. Every metric and quoted figure is listed under Sources and data below.

Filed underMuscle Physiology and Disorders, Neurogenetic and Muscular Disorders Research, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research

Scored 2026-10-20How scoring works

The Frontier Score, in full

How this entry's score is built, term by term. Open any pillar to see each sub-metric's raw value, how it maps to 0 to 100, and a link to its source (OpenAlex for most sub-metrics that combine several sources, NIH iCite where its ratio is part of field-normalized impact).
Evidence 77Impact 36Novelty 62
The three pillars as one shape: a result strong on every axis fills the triangle.
How the Frontier Score is calculated for this breakthrough
TermScoreWeightPoints
EvidenceHow established and verifiable the result is.77× 0.2519.3
ImpactHow much the result matters, judged field-relative and by current momentum.36× 0.259.0
NoveltyHow genuinely new the result is, and how fast-moving.62× 0.5031.2
Weighted pillars59.4
Frontier recency0 months since publication× 0.99
IntegrityNot retracted× 1
Frontier Score59
Confidence: Early signal. Early signal: little citation history yet, so impact is an estimate and may shift as the work is taken up. Corroborated beyond citations (1 clinical trial).Early signal: little citation history yet, so impact is an estimate and may shift as the work is taken up. Corroborated beyond citations (1 clinical trial).

Every sub-metric, traced to its source

Evidence77
Evidence sub-metrics
Sub-metricRaw value0 to 100WeightPointsSource
Peer review & venueWhether the work has cleared peer review, and how selective its venue is. Peer review is necessary but not sufficient: before citations accrue, a fresh result in one of the five general flagships (Nature, Science, Cell, NEJM, the Lancet) is a stronger evidence signal than one in a selective specialist or society journal, which in turn outranks one in a legitimate but very high-volume mega-journal, and any of them outranks a preprint that has not been reviewed at all.Maps to 0 to 100: Peer-reviewed article graded by venue tier: flagship journal (Nature, Science, Cell, NEJM, the Lancet) 100; selective journal (every other journal the index admits: the specialist journals of those families, JAMA, PNAS, Physical Review Letters and X) 90; high-volume mega-journal (Nature Communications, Science Advances) 78; venue not recorded 88. Other records: review 90, book 70, dataset 60, preprint 45, an article that has not been peer reviewed 45, other 55.Peer-reviewed, selective journal900.3027.0OpenAlex type / primary_location / source
CorroborationIndependent corroboration that the result is on the record and reaching beyond a single source, read as the BREADTH of independent records rather than the size of the citation pile. Counts how many of the five independent citation indices (OpenAlex, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, OpenCitations, Europe PMC) report a citation count for the work at all, zero included, plus orthogonal, non-citation lines of corroboration: citation in Wikipedia, registered clinical trials or clinical citations, released datasets or software or a repository copy, public funding on record, and technical-community discussion. Citation MAGNITUDE is deliberately judged under Impact, not here, so Evidence and Impact measure genuinely different things instead of both rewarding the same citation pile twice.Maps to 0 to 100: Starts at 28 and rises by 9 for each of the five independent citation indices that returns a citation count for the work (zero counts; OpenCitations returns zero even for a DOI it does not hold) and by 6 for each orthogonal non-citation line (Wikipedia, clinical trials or clinical citations, open datasets, software or a repository copy, public funding, community discussion), up to the top of the 0-100 scale.4 of 5 citation indices report a count, 1 independent non-citation line700.3021.0OpenAlex, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, OpenCitations, Europe PMC, DataCite, NIH RePORTER, Wikipedia, Hacker News count of indices that report a count for the work + orthogonal reach
VerifiabilityHow openly the result can be read, reused, and reproduced. Rewards open access, a Creative Commons BY or CC0 license, a green repository copy anyone can archive, openly minable full text, and released datasets or software a reader can actually run. Cross-checked across OpenAlex, Unpaywall, Europe PMC, and DataCite.Maps to 0 to 100: Closed access 45; open access 88; any Creative Commons BY license (including the NC, ND and SA variants) or CC0 100. A repository copy raises the floor to 85, openly minable full text to 90, and released data or software to 92.Closed access450.209.0OpenAlex, Unpaywall, Europe PMC, DataCite is_oa / license / has_repository_copy / open datasets
IntegrityRetraction and post-publication correction status. A retracted result is not evidence of anything and collapses the whole Frontier Score; a correction or expression of concern is a softer flag. A correction the publisher labels as its own error (a Publisher Correction) is not a flag on the work. Read across OpenAlex and Crossref (both update-to and updated-by notices).Maps to 0 to 100: Clean 100 (also when the only notice is a Publisher Correction); a correction or expression of concern 75; retracted 0. Flagged if OpenAlex OR Crossref records the notice.No retraction or concern on record1000.2020.0OpenAlex, Crossref is_retracted / update-to / updated-by
Impact36
Impact sub-metrics
Sub-metricRaw value0 to 100WeightPointsSource
Field-normalized impactImpact relative to the world average for the same field, year, and type, so a small field and a large field are judged fairly. Triangulates three independent field-normalized measures: OpenAlex's Field-Weighted Citation Impact, its citation percentile within the exact field-and-year cohort, and the NIH iCite Relative Citation Ratio. 1.0x is average; the percentile is the share of same-field, same-year work it out-cites.Maps to 0 to 100: Each ratio (1.0 = field average) maps 1.0 to 50, 3.0 to 75, 9.0 to 90; the field+year percentile maps directly (top 1% -> ~99). The available measures are averaged. When none is available yet (very recent work), this sub-metric is left out and Impact is computed from the others.1.8x FWCI, top 11% of field-year vs field770.4534.7OpenAlex, NIH iCite fwci / citation_normalized_percentile / relative_citation_ratio
Influential citationsCitations that genuinely build on the work rather than mention it in passing (Semantic Scholar's influential-citation measure). A sharper signal of real impact than a raw count.Maps to 0 to 100: Saturating: 15 influential citations maps to 50, and none maps to 0. When Semantic Scholar has no measure for the work, this sub-metric is left out and Impact is computed from the others.0 influential00.200.0Semantic Scholar influentialCitationCount
Citation velocityCitations received in the trailing twelve months (estimated from yearly citation counts: this year's so far plus the share of last year's that falls inside the window), judged as a rate rather than a lifetime total. Momentum is what a frontier index cares about: a result being taken up fast right now is landing, whether its lifetime pile is large or still small. Where an expected field citation rate is known, the momentum is also read relative to it, so a fast-moving result in a quiet field is not overlooked.Maps to 0 to 100: Saturating: 30 citations in the last twelve months maps to 50. When NIH iCite provides the field's expected rate, this is blended evenly with the ratio of observed to expected momentum.1 in last 12 months30.351.1OpenAlex, NIH iCite counts_by_year / field_citation_rate
Novelty62
Novelty sub-metrics
Sub-metricRaw value0 to 100WeightPointsSource
Conceptual noveltyHow genuinely new the contribution is, measured at publication from the work's OWN content, not its date: how atypical its combination of research areas is versus all prior work, and whether it builds on a broad, deep base rather than only the newest papers in a fast-moving area. This is what separates a real advance from a recent-but-commodity result, and it needs no forward citations, so it is stable for brand-new work. An honestly noisy proxy (even state-of-the-art novelty measures agree only moderately with expert judgment), so it carries bounded weight and never drives the ranking alone.Maps to 0 to 100: Two publication-time signals, each 0-100. The primary one is atypical combination: how unusual the work's median pairing of research topics is versus the prior literature, by pointwise mutual information (a pairing made far more often than chance scores low). The second, foundational reach (the median age of the work's references and the share older than five years), can only lift it: when reach is higher, the score rises by 35% of the gap, and it is never lowered. When only one signal is measurable it is used alone; when neither is (a work too thin in topics or references), this sub-metric is left out and Novelty is computed from the other three. A review is damped to 60%.Median topic pairing Muscle Physiology and Disorders x Neurogenetic and Muscular Disorders Research (45,627 prior works made this pairing); builds on refs a median 11.7y deep350.4515.8OpenAlex topics + referenced_works (publication-time)
RecencyHow recently the work appeared. The frontier is now, so newer scores higher.Maps to 0 to 100: Exponential decay with a 12-month half-life from the publication date.This month990.3029.7OpenAlex publication_date
Attention accelerationWhether attention is rising: citations in the latest full year versus the year before. Accelerating interest signals an active, opening frontier.Maps to 0 to 100: Latest/prior-year ratio: 1x maps to 50, 2x to 75, 4x to 100. The prior year counts as at least 3 citations, so a jump from one citation to a few is not read as explosive growth. With no citations in the latest full year it reads as unknown, and unknown is neutral (50).Not enough history500.105.0OpenAlex counts_by_year
Edge of reviewPreprints sit ahead of the peer-review process and brand-new papers have only just cleared it. Both earn novelty here (while a preprint is discounted under Evidence), because that is where the frontier forms first.Maps to 0 to 100: Preprint 95; any other record 80 when under 6 months old, 65 under 18 months, 45 after that.Peer-reviewed record800.1512.0OpenAlex type / publication_date
ProvenanceAll sources

Sources and data

The source figures behind this entry, grouped by the source that holds them: up to five citation indices cross-checked, field-normalized impact, then real-world reach (Wikipedia, community discussion, clinical trials, released data and public funding) where it exists. Each value links to its record.

OpenAlex

Primary record
Total citations
1
Field-weighted citation impact
1.8x field average
Citation percentile
Top 11% of its field-year
Citations, recent 12 months
1
Publication date
2026-10-14

Crossref

Citations
1
Works it builds on
40

Semantic Scholar

Citations, all versions
1
Influential citations
0

OpenCitations

Citations
0

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registered clinical trials
1 (to phase 2)

Figures quoted in the write-up

FigureValueSource
Healthy adult men randomised in part A (Aged 18-55 years; their data informed the dosing in part B)45The Lancet Neurology
Participants with DMD44 randomised in part B (Ambulatory and non-ambulatory male participants aged 7-27 years, at ten US sites)26The Lancet Neurology
Mean increase from baseline in dystrophin level at 10 mg/kg (To month 5)25.6% (95% CI 13.0 to 38.3), nominal p=0.0013The Lancet Neurology
Mean change from baseline in dystrophin level with placebo (Placebo group of part B)-0.7% (95% CI -4.8 to 3.3), nominal p=0.66The Lancet Neurology
Participants with DMD44 on del-zota who reported at least one adverse event (Most events mild or moderate)16 of 19 (84%)The Lancet Neurology
Participants who discontinued because of an adverse event (Both in the 5 mg/kg del-zota group: an anaphylactic reaction and an infusion-related reaction)2The Lancet Neurology
Lower dose regimen in part B (Three intravenous doses of del-zota)5 mg/kg every 6 weeksThe Lancet Neurology
Higher dose regimen in part B (Three intravenous doses of del-zota)10 mg/kg every 8 weeksThe Lancet Neurology
Participants with DMD44 on placebo who reported at least one adverse event (Part B placebo group; most events mild or moderate)6 of 7 (86%)The Lancet Neurology
Participants who received del-zota at 5 mg/kg every 6 weeks (Three intravenous doses)9The Lancet Neurology
Participants who received del-zota at 10 mg/kg every 8 weeks (Three intravenous doses)10The Lancet Neurology
Participants who received placebo in part B (Randomised 3:1 del-zota to placebo within each dose cohort)7The Lancet Neurology
Mean age of the part B participants (Ambulatory and non-ambulatory males with DMD44)13.3 years (SD 4.2)The Lancet Neurology
Mean increase from baseline in exon 44 skipping at 5 mg/kg (To month 4; exon skipping is the share of dystrophin mRNA transcripts that exclude exon 44)36.6% (95% CI 20.8 to 52.4), nominal p=0.0013The Lancet Neurology
Mean increase from baseline in exon 44 skipping at 10 mg/kg (To month 5)43.4% (95% CI 32.8 to 54.0), nominal p<0.0001The Lancet Neurology
Mean increase from baseline in exon 44 skipping with placebo (Placebo group of part B)1.6% (95% CI -3.4 to 6.7), nominal p=0.44The Lancet Neurology
Mean increase from baseline in dystrophin level at 5 mg/kg (To month 4)25.0% (95% CI 9.2 to 40.7), nominal p=0.0082The Lancet Neurology
For the authors

Show this score where your work lives

A badge for your lab page, your CV or the paper's code repository. It links readers to this entry, and it always carries the entry's current score.
This paper's Frontier Score badge, as it appears where you place itLive preview
<a href="https://frontierresearch.co/breakthroughs/safety-and-efficacy-of-delpacibart-zotadirsen-in-duchenn-w7221774428?utm_source=badge&amp;utm_medium=badge&amp;utm_campaign=author-kit"><img src="https://frontierresearch.co/api/badge/W7221774428.svg" alt="Frontier Score for this paper" height="20"></a>

For a lab or personal website, a CV page, or anywhere that takes HTML.

The number is live. The badge is drawn from the same signals as this page, so it never shows a score the entry does not. Every entry is re-checked weekly against the same public sources, and a result's standing eases as it ages, so the active edge of the field stays on top. How scoring works

Something wrong or out of date? Write to hello@frontierresearch.co and the entry will be corrected.

Biomedicine & HealthThe whole field

Back to the Frontier Index, or browse every breakthrough by date.

The Frontier Brief

The week's Biomedicine & Health, scored.

Every Monday, up to six of the week's new Biomedicine & Health entries in the index, each with its score and a one-line read on why it matters, then the week's best from the rest of the frontier. What you get

Prefer a feed reader? Follow Biomedicine & Health by RSS

One email a week: up to six of the week's new Biomedicine & Health entries, scored, then the best elsewhere. Unsubscribe anytime.