Medical management of muscle weakness in Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

INTRODUCTION: Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a childhood onset muscular dystrophy leading to shortened life expectancy. There are gaps in published DMD care guidelines regarding recently approved DMD medications and alternative steroid dosing regimens.
METHODS: A list of statements about use of currently available therapies for DMD in the United States was developed based on a systematic literature review and expert panel feedback. Panelists' responses were collected using a modified Delphi approach.
RESULTS: Among corticosteroid regimens, either deflazacort or prednisone weekend dosing was preferred when payer requirements do not dictate choice. Most patients with exon 51 skip-amenable mutations should be offered eteplirsen, before or with a corticosteroid. DISCUSSION: The options available for medical management of the motor symptoms of DMD are expanding rapidly. The choice of medical therapies should balance expected benefit with side effects.

Introduction

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is an X-linked recessive muscle disorder resulting in progressive weakness, loss of ambulation, and premature death due to respiratory and cardiac failure [1-4]. Historically, patients with DMD did not survive past late teens or early 20s [1,5,6]. With current management, life expectancy has been extended by 5–15 years [5,7]. The management of DMD is complex and requires a multidisciplinary approach. The DMD Care Considerations, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), provided expert opinion, and evidence based guidelines for the diagnosis, management, and care continuum of DMD [8-10]. However, since these guidelines were published, new medications have received FDA approval for treatment of DMD. Here, we present expert opinion on the use of newly approved medications in DMD to assist in clinical decision-making not addressed in the published Care Considerations.

Methods

A steering committee for this project was comprised of three experts specialized in the diagnosis and treatment of DMD (K. D. Mathews, chair, A. M. Connolly, and R. J. Butterfield; combined 62 years of experience in DMD care at the faculty level). This steering committee participated in all aspects and conduct of this study. Co-authors (HZA, GA, JB, EC, BTD, STI, CGK, NLK, CMM, JAP, CTR, and CMZ) together with the steering committee members comprise the expert panel who contributed to the consensus.

Gaps in current treatment guidance for the medical management of muscle weakness in DMD were identified by literature review, with additional input by the steering committee. Based on identified gaps, a list of statements was developed for panelist response using a modified Delphi method as summarized in Fig 1. The expert panel was surveyed using an online portal “Survey Monkey”. Most statements were addressed with a 5-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The statements regarding corticosteroids focused on three regimens commonly used in the United States and for which published data exists: daily prednisone (DP), weekend prednisone (WP) and daily deflazacort (DD). Questions focused on expert opinion regarding best regimen for treatment and what issues should be considered in choosing a corticosteroid regimen. The statements regarding eteplirsen focused on which patients should be offered treatment with eteplirsen, how treatment response should be monitored, and safety of eteplirsen.

Fig 1

Overview of consensus statement development using the modified Delphi method.

The first two rounds of interviews/survey were electronic only, to ensure anonymity and unbiased reponses. During the first round of survey, the panel rated each statement based on their clinical experience, knowledge, and current practice patterns for the management of DMD. The panel members also provided comments regarding the inclusion/exclusion of the statements as well as the clarity of the statements to understand and make informed decisions. Following this, the statements were updated based on feedback from the panel to improve clarity. The second-round of surveys was conducted by using revised or new statements agreed upon by the steering committee. Next, a third survey was conducted via a series of teleconferences to identify gaps not yet addressed and areas where greater clarity was required. Based on this, a final fourth survey was conducted to ensure that the panel members’ reasoning and consensus was adequately captured. The data collection through surveys and teleconference was carried out between 13 November 2019 and 4 December, 2019. For analysis, the statements were grouped “agree” with “strongly agree”, and “disagree” with “strongly disagree”.

Results

All 15 panel members voted on each round of the survey and participated in teleconferences. The responses from all rounds of survey were collated for analysis and the final responses are summarized in Fig 2. The specific statements and voting results for all the rounds are presented as S1 Table (survey round 1) and S2 and S3 Tables (survey round 2&4).

Fig 2

Consensus level on the key statements rated by expert panel.

Corticosteroids

Statements and responses regarding use of corticosteroids are summarized in Fig 2, along with detailed responses in S2 Table. There was 100% consensus that corticosteroids are effective in DMD. There was no clear consensus about relative effectiveness or clinical preference for the three corticosteroid regimens explored: DP, WP and DD. Most panel members have used all three dosing regimens in practice (Fig 2 and Table 1, Statement 1) and felt that all three approaches were acceptable regimens. The clinician perception of comparative effectiveness is summarized in Fig 2. When asked specifically about the strength of evidence supporting each of the regimens, panel members responded that there was evidence to support all three regimens. However, 10 respondents strongly agreed that there was strong evidence for the daily dosing (prednisone and deflazacort respectively) compared to 3 strong agreement responses for WP (S2 Table, Statement 7).

Table 1

Experts opinion regarding utilization and preference over different corticosteroid regimens (survey round 2&4).

Statement 1: Utilization assessment	> 10 times	<10 times	Not at all
a. Have you used daily prednisone in your practice?	14	1	0
b. Have you used weekend prednisone in your practice?	11	3	1
c. Have you used daily deflazacort in your practice?	13	2	0
Statement 2: Treatment preferences	DP	WP	DD
If payer requirements were not an issue what would be your first choice for corticosteroid treatment?	1	6	8
Statement 3: For patients where steroid use is clinically appropriate, please rank the following steroid treatments based on your preference.	DP	WP	DD
a. Rank 1 (no. of responses)	3	7	7
b. Rank 2 (no. of responses)	9	2	6
c. Rank 3 (no. of responses)	3	6	2

If payer requirements were not a consideration, panalists were divided on the most appropriate dosing regimen between DD (eight panelists) and WP (six panelists) (Table 1, Statement 2). Daily prednisone was favored as a first line medication by only one panel member.

Side effects differ among corticosteroid dosing regimens.There was consensus that corticosteroid side effects influence management decisions (family reluctance to start corticosteroids, need for dose modifications) and must be discussed with families. There was general agreement about the side effect profiles of daily corticosteroids (S2 Table). When asked to compare a daily corticosteroid (DP or DD) with a weekend regimen (WP), panel members either offered no opinion or believed that weekend corticosteroids had fewer side effects, with specific comparisons shown in S2 Table.

Eteplirsen

Statements and responses regarding use of eteplirsen are summarized in S3 Table and key statements are summarized in Fig 2. All experts agreed or strongly agreed that eteplirsen should be offered to those with an appropriate mutation provided there is a potential for clinical benefit based on disease stage (S3 Table, Statement 1a). Thirteen agreed or strongly agreed that eteplirsen is likely to slow disease progression (S3 Table, Statement 2b) and a majority (twelve) agreed or strongly agreed that eteplirsen slows respiratory decline (S3 Table, Statement 6a). Eight had no opinion regarding the effect on cardiac function (the remainder divided on likely benefit) presented in S3 Table, Statement 6b).

We then explored the panel members’ opinions about potential benefit from eteplirsen relative to stage of disease. All would offer eteplirsen at diagnosis (S3 Table, Statement 4a), and most (12/15) would offer eteplirsen to patients with significant disability but maintaining some independent functioning (wheelchair dependent but still able to feed himself) (S3 Table, Statement 4d). The majority (fourteen), disagree with offering eteplirsen to a patient who is completely dependent (on ventilation and cannot drive a power wheelchair independently) (S3 Table, Statement 4e).

All panel experts agreed that eteplirsen could be given with corticosteroids (S3 Table, Statement 3a&b) and that it is appropriate to offer eteplirsen to patients not yet ready to start corticosteroids (S3 Table, Statement 8).

There was consensus (13 agreed or strongly agreed) that those on eteplirsen could be monitored by clinical measures such as motor outcomes, motor milestones, and pulmonary function tests (S3 Table, Statement 5b). No panelist agreed with a statement that muscle biopsy should be done to monitor effect of eteplirsen (S3 Table, Statement 5a).

There was universal agreement by all panel members that potential risks of weekly infusions of eteplirsen should be explicitly discussed with families prior to starting the drug and also full agreement that it is well tolerated outside of risks associated with frequent infusions (S3 Table Statement 7).

Discussion

The management of DMD is complex and requires a multidisciplinary approach. One aspect of care is medical therapy directed at preserving or improving muscle function. The recent care considerations are in agreement that corticosteroids are indicated for the medical management of DMD, but when those guidelines were developed, deflazacort was not yet FDA approved [7]. In addition, while the care considerations cited the available literature about intermittent corticosteroid dosing, there were no recommendations regarding the use of this regimen in practice. Similarly, eteplirsen was approved by the FDA after the CDC sponsored care considerations were developed [8-10]. The objective of this study was to collect the opinions of clinicians actively caring for patients with DMD regarding these treatments of muscle weakness and to determine where there is consensus on use of these treatments to aid clinicians in medical decision making. The information presented here is also expected to inform payers about current standards of care.

With two corticosteroid drugs used in DMD and daily or intermittent dosing schedules, clinical decision-making regarding corticosteroids has become more complex. Our data indicate that elements driving provider choice of corticosteroid regimen include effectiveness, side effect profile, cost to family, and payer requirements, all of which also likely contribute to individual family preferences. There continues to be limited data directly comparing effectiveness of different steroid regimens. Therefore, our methods did not allow for a clear expert opinion on relative effectiveness between all regimens. For example, those who disagreed with the statement “DP is more effective than DD” might have disagreed because they believe the two drugs have equal efficacy or that they feel DP is less effective. Daily corticosteroids are associated with multiple adverse effects (AEs) that have been well documented [7]. The consensus estimate of relative severity of side effects with different steroid regimens is summarized in Table 2, which might be of use in discussing the relative merits and side effects of each regimen with families. Our data suggest that payer requirements (rather than medical preference) influences the choice of corticosteroid for some clinicians and if payer requirements are not considered, DD or WP are preferred over DP.

Table 2

Consensus comparison of corticosteroid side effect profiles.

Factors	Daily prednisone	Daily deflazacort	Weekend Prednisone
Obesity / Weight gain	♦♦♦	♦♦	♦
Osteoporosis	♦♦♦	♦♦♦	♦
Behavior disturbance	♦♦♦	♦♦	♦
Delayed puberty	♦♦♦	♦♦♦	♦
Cataract	♦♦	♦♦♦	♦
Hypertension	♦♦♦	♦♦♦	♦
Adrenal Crisis	♦♦♦	♦♦♦	♦

♦♦♦Highest risk; ♦♦Moderate risk; ♦lowest risk.

Even before approval of new medicines for DMD, the reported cost associated with DMD management was high with an estimated mean annual out-of-pocket cost of $14,390 ($10,330-$22,970) in the US [11]. With FDA approval of new, very expensive treatments, cost for medication is an important part of DMD care. Prednisone is a generic medication and is far less expensive than deflazacort, although the cost to the family will be dependent on insurance coverage. All but one of the expert panel felt that cost to the family should be explored when considering treatment options.

Eteplirsen is an antisense oligonucleotide designed to promote skipping of exon 51 in the DMD gene, thus restoring reading frame in patients with appropriate mutations [12]. Eteplirsen was granted accelerated approval by the FDA in September 2016, based on increased dystrophin level in muscle [13]. The clinical utility of the eteplirsen is less well documented and the results of the phase 3 trial have not yet been published, however clinicians need to make decisions about its appropriate clinical use. Eteplirsen is reported to be well tolerated over a period of 168 weeks duration [14]. However, discussion of eteplirsen should include the impact and inconvenience of weekly infusion, including the possible need for an implantable venous access port. We found consensus that eteplirsen should be offered to patients with confirmed mutations amenable to exon 51 skipping at diagnosis and through a stage of useful arm function, while it is not appropriate in very late disease.

Payers typically require regular, formal evaluation of the efficacy of eteplirsen for ongoing approval. Eteplirsen is expected to slow decline in muscle strength, not reverse disease course. There was a consensus that efficacy should be measured clinically by using standardized tests of motor and respiratory function, and long-term functional milestones such as loss of ambulation and need for respiratory support. The choice of specific motor function tests is dependent on the resources and physical environment in each clinic. For example, while the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) has been used extensively in a research setting, it is often not practical in a busy clinic with crowded hallways [15,16]. There was complete agreement that muscle biopsy is not an appropriate measure of eteplirsen utility outside of research studies.

Since the completion of this work, the FDA gave accelerated approval to golodirsen, a medication designed to skip exon 53 in the DMD gene, through a mechanism similar to eteplirsen. Golodirsen is also administered by weekly infusions and has similar safety profile [7,17-20]. While it was not included in this study, clinical use (indications, risks and benefits, and monitoring) is likely to be similar to eteplirsen.

The members of the expert panel all manage patients with DMD in clinic and are having discussion of medical management with patients routinely. The work presented here reflects opinions regarding real world experiences and approaches to patient management. While there are some areas of strong consensus, there are other areas where consensus is lacking or most respondents neither agree nor disagree with the statement. The relative effectiveness of different corticosteroid regimens is one area where there is a clear need for more data.

The members of the panel participate in previous and ongoing clinical trials, including trials sponsored by companies whose drugs are discussed here. We note that expertise in clinical management is a pre-requisite for both expert opinion and clinical trial participation, so this overlap is not surprising. The authors have no personal benefit from use of the drugs discussed and affirm that the opinions provided are free of commercial bias to the extent possible.

Treatment options for DMD are rapidly evolving, with three new drugs approved in the past three years and evidence growing about use of older drugs. Comprehensive care guidelines are a critical basis for care, but the pace of drug development requires regular updates. The data presented here are intended to assist clinicians, families, and payers in decision making about medical treatment of muscle weakness in DMD while we await additional data. We anticipate that efforts to understand consensus with broad input similar to this effort using the Delphi method will be helpful as new treatments are approved, clinical trial data are released, and real world experience matures.

PRISMA flow diagram of systematic literature searches.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Consensus statements & level of agreement (survey round 1).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Consensus statements & level of agreement for treatment with corticosteroids (survey round 2&4).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Consensus statements & level of agreement for treatment with eteplirsen (survey round 2&4).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

DMD—Round 1.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

DMD—Round 2.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

DMD—Round 3.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

24 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-22472

Medical management of muscle weakness in Duchenne muscular dystrophy

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rivera,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 22 september 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alfio Spina, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure  section:

'The organization in which SRR and SKJ are employed received payment from Sarepta to support the development of this manuscript. SRR and SKJ were in the role of facilitator, literature review coordinator, and medical writer to develop a manuscript based on survey outcomes, recommendations, and conclusion as reported by steering committee. They did not have any active role in experts panel selection, methodology development, interview questions finalization, outcomes assessment, and developing conclusion. Therefore, they had no influence on the decisions or outcomes of the entire program.

None of the others authors that served as expert panel and steering committee members were compensated in any way.

Also note that Sarepta had no influence on the decisions or outcomes of the entire program or any part of the manuscript.'

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Sarepta

a. Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

We also note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Optum

b. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

C. Please also declare this commercial affiliation in your updated Competing Interests Statement, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

c. Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I thank the authors for their laborious work. I would suggest adding more questions in the Delphi iteration questionnaire regarding the motor power and pulmonary function tests in addition to the cardiac function in the field of steroid response as a comparison among DP, WP and DD, in order to yield the questionnaire more objective and semi quantitative. Triangulated research is needed in the future recommendation.

Reviewer #2: The idea of this study is important and the manuscript is well written.

The authors focus on a major gap in current treatment guidence for the medical management of musce weakness in DMD.

The topic, the data and the approach are interesting to neuroogy community. It shoud bu accepted without revision

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: MM

Reviewer #2: Yes: Bilgehan Atılgan ACAR

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

27 Aug 2020

Thank you for the review and feedback for our manuscript, “Medical management of muscle weakness in Duchenne muscular dystrophy.” We have prepared all the requested additional documents and made all changes requested.

This includes the following:

1. Both a marked-up and unmarked copy of the manuscript. You will find we made only minor changes to align with the PLOS ONE style requirements.

2. We have uploaded all the files that contain our raw survey data as Supporting Information. There are no ethical or legal restrictions for the sharing of this data we were just unsure how it was to be shared in the initial submission. We apologize for this error.

3. Within our revised cover letter, we have asked that our Funding Disclosure be updated to reflect the statements that better define the employment relationship with Optum for authors SRR and SKJ.

4. Along these same lines we have also requested in the cover letter, an update to the Conflicting Interests Statement to better clarify the affiliation and support provided by both Sarepta and Optum.

1 Oct 2020

Medical management of muscle weakness in Duchenne muscular dystrophy

PONE-D-20-22472R1

Dear Dr. Sarah Rivera,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alfio Spina, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

6 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-22472R1

Medical management of muscle weakness in Duchenne muscular dystrophy

Dear Dr. Rivera:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alfio Spina

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE