Loading

International Journal of Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs

A “Small” Data Approach to Evaluating Clinical Outcomes in Rare Disease

Perspective | Open Access Volume 3 | Issue 1 |

  • 1. Clinical Services, Clinical Research and Evaluation, USA
  • 2. Clinical Services, Emerging Therapeutics, USA
  • 3. Quality and Accreditation, Diplomat Pharmacy, USA
+ Show More - Show Less
Corresponding Authors
Steven Schwartz, Clinical Services, Clinical Research and Evaluation, 4100 S. Saginaw St. Flint, MI 48507, USA, Tel: 810-768-9308
Abstract

Rigorously testing the growing medication pipeline for rare conditions continues to be an industry challenge. The low prevalence rates for rare diseases run contrary to the phased drug development processes that are the standard and poses significant obstacles for developing, testing, and approval of promising treatments. The intent of this position paper is to bring together into a practical framework three elements of clinical research (N-of-1, adaptive design techniques, and multiple baseline) for testing small and variable samples of patients undergoing treatment. The objective is to bring continuity and best practices to the evaluation of pharmaceutical products for treating rare disease. Specifically, the paper discusses general principles for when and how they should be applied and what limitations should be considered when developing methods for testing treatments for rare diseases.

KEYWORDS

•    N-of-1
•    Clinical trials
•    Adaptive design
•    Multiple baseline
•    Niemann-Pick Type C
•    Real world outcomes

CITATION

Schwartz S, Chandanais R, Yazdanfar M (2019) A “Small” Data Approach to Evaluating Clinical Outcomes in Rare Disease. Int J Rare Dis Orph Drugs 3(1): 1008.

PERSPECTIVE

Orphan drug trends

Rare diseases in the U.S. are defined as having a patient population of <200,000. Although each disease impacts a relatively small patient population, there are estimated to be approximately 7,000 documented rare diseases. This corresponds to about 25-30 million people in the U.S. alone managing a rare disease [1]. Considered in total, rare disease touches us all.

Historically, pharmaceutical manufacturers have shown little interest in developing rare disease treatments, in part due to a perceived limited economic potential relative to development costs. For example, between 1973 and 1983, fewer than 10 rare disease treatments reached the U.S. market. To encourage the development of drugs to treat rare diseases, the FDA Office of Orphan Products Development (OOPD) implemented several programs including the Orphan Drug Designation, Rare Pediatric Disease Designation, Priority Review Voucher, Humanitarian Use Device, and various grant programs to support greater innovation in this area [2].

As a result, the orphan disease drug pipeline has become one of the most active in drug development today. Since 1983, more than 600 agents treating rare diseases have reached the market. Additionally, there are more than 560 products in development for the treatment of rare diseases. Many manufacturers now see rare diseases as an opportunity to treat patients with an unmet medical need in a disease state where there is often little or no competition for market share. This has also been an inroad for smaller manufacturers to enter the market. Despite the increased interest and number of product approvals, about 95% of rare diseases still lack an FDA-approved treatment option [3].

Rigorously testing this growing medication pipeline for rare conditions continues to be an industry challenge. The low prevalence rates for rare diseases are contrary to the phased drug development processes that are the standard in the pharmaceutical industry today. Consequently, rare diseases pose a number of significant obstacles for developing, testing, and approval of promising treatments.

1. The range of methodological issues impacting drug development has been discussed in broad context elsewhere [4-7]. The intent of this position paper is to bring together, into a practical framework, three elements of clinical research for testing small and highly variable samples of patients undergoing treatment. The objective is to bring continuity and best practices to the evaluation of pharmaceutical products for treating rare disease. Specifically, this paper will cover three approaches, discuss general principles for when and how they should be applied, and discuss what limitations should be considered when developing methods for testing treatments for rare diseases. The paper will specifically address the following:N of 1 Trials. These trials are designed, conducted, and evaluated at the level of the individual patient or small group, with the intention of objectively optimizing treatment for an individual patient [8].

2. Adaptive Research Design. A defined trial allows for prospective modifications to the design based on accumulating data feedback on the trial subjects [9,10].

3. Multiple Baselines. The multiple baseline design staggers the length of baseline and onset of intervention with repeated measures across treatment conditions such that each consecutive individual serves as both control and treatment subject [11].

N-of-1 Methodology

Aggregated data commonly used in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and, more recently, in big data approaches use deductive inference that works from a forest view of clinical outcomes based on the greatest overall outcomes (i.e. group averages) generalized to a specific patient. This type of reasoning is both logically sound and has been associated with advances in clinical treatments that help the most people the most. For high-prevalence conditions, the power (or ability to detect a treatment effect) of testing a promising treatment is based in part on the size of the sample tested (i.e. more patients tested more power to detect a treatment effect). However, the RCT has more recently been subject to some criticisms primarily focused on its limitations as the “sole” source of evidence. The general acceptance of this model by the healthcare industry and regulatory institutions has ignored a complementary measurement and evaluation approach that makes greater use of inductive reasoning — namely, N-of-1 treatment designs and analysis.

The rigor and logic of N-of-1 designs have been well articulated and expanded upon for over a half century. Yet they have never achieved widespread adoption by practitioners or patients because the labor and time required for collecting the time series data necessary for N-of-1 analyses was prohibitive. However, with the growing availability of streaming data via digital, mobile, wearable, and other evolving technologies, this barrier is no longer an issue. By using more refined time-ordered data (data measured more frequently over time) to optimize evaluation of individual-level treatment response over time, proof points regarding both efficacy and effectiveness can be expedited (as well as identification of AEs). Such approaches are particularly well suited to the acquisition of real-world data. Additionally, N-of-1 approaches are truer to clinical practice by providing individualized evaluation and feedback to the patient and clinician about the quality and strength of their unique treatment response, which have been shown to enhance patient/ clinician dialogue [12]. Further, like more traditional approaches, N-of-1 can incorporate biological (genomic), behavioral, psychological, and digital health data. The N-of-1 framework does not challenge the more conventional group science or trendier big data but actually complements them with strategies around time-ordered data within a single individual and then aggregates across multiple individuals.

Adaptive design

Adaptive designs have become of greater interest and are part of the FDA’s approach to innovating and streamlining the drug development pipeline and approval process. Accordingly, the FDA defines adaptive studies as those which prospectively allow for possible planned study modifications based on study data and experience that have accrued up to some defined interim evaluation cadence [13]. Such changes can be procedural or analytical [11,14]. Such adaptation is an inherent part of the N-of-1 trial and is also much truer to clinical practice and decision-making, where either staying or changing the course of care is driven by the feedback of clinical data.

Multiple baseline

The multiple baseline design is one in which the start of treatment is staggered across individuals. Figure 1 graphically displays a basic multiple baseline design. In Figure 1, three baseline cohorts are defined by three (safe) baseline lengths (A Phase) to which patients can be randomized. Patients are randomized again, at the onset of the B Phase into an active treatment or comparison (control) condition. The staggering of treatment onset helps control for a host of other potentially unknown confounders (much in the way randomization does) and supports stronger causal conclusions when the clinical change (i.e. outcomes) observed is temporally contingent with the onset and course of treatment. C phases can constitute additional treatments, titration of the B Phase treatment, or, in a true reversal design, would be the treatment not assigned in the B Phase.

Basic Multiple Baseline Design.

Figure 1: Basic Multiple Baseline Design.

An Example Use Case - Niemann-Pick (Type C)

Niemann-Pick type C (NPC) is a rare autosomal recessive disease affecting approximately 2,000-3,000 individuals globally. It is one of a family of lysosomal storage disorders that affects the ability of the body to metabolize cholesterol and other lipids. This diminished metabolization results in the accumulation of lipids within organs and tissues including the brain, liver, and lungs, ultimately resulting in death. NPC is caused by mutations of the NPC1 or NPC2 genes, with NPC1 mutation being the most common [15,16].

The onset of symptoms is highly variable (occurring along the developmental pathway from infancy to adulthood). Symptoms of NPC may include ataxia, vertical supranuclear gaze palsy, dystonia, liver disease, interstitial lung disease, difficulty speaking and swallowing, reduced mental function, and seizures. Individuals with Niemann-Pick type C generally begin exhibiting symptoms in childhood and may live to become adults. There is no FDA-approved treatment for NPC. However, miglustat is approved by the European Medicines Association (EMA), as well as the regulatory organizations of some other countries [15,16].

Treatment Pipeline

Recently, a pivotal randomized clinical trial to support FDA approval for a promising cyclodextrin compound known as adrabetadex or VTS-270 for the treatment of NPC failed [17]. Importantly, the study of 56 patients over 52 weeks failed in part because neither the treatment nor control condition demonstrated worsening of their clinical course, leaving researchers unable to determine exactly what the results mean. The negative results may have multiple explanations, some of which do not reflect on the efficacy of the medication itself. In a journalistic article reporting on the trial outcomes [17], the trial design was questioned. Importantly, without change (i.e. variability) in the primary outcome in either or both of the treatment and control groups, it is next to impossible to demonstrate a treatment effect. Interestingly, an earlier phase 1-2 trial concluded that VTS-270 slowed progression of NPC, as measured by improvement in certain neurological severity scores [18].

The results of these two studies seem to be at odds with each other and leave a great deal of uncertainty regarding the disease progression of NPC and the efficacy of adrabetadex. Alternative techniques for testing efficacy such as N-of-1, multiple baseline, and adaptive design techniques may have been useful in providing further insight into the natural course of NPC, as well as the safety and efficacy of potential treatments.

Application of Combined Methodology to an NPC Trial

In this fictionalized use-case design example, a promising NPC treatment will serve to illustrate how these approaches might work together. Figure 2 defines a 3 X 2 X 2 mixed model factorial design whereby consecutive qualifying subjects are initially randomized into one of three varying baseline periods. This consecutive recruitment and randomization can occur at any point in the drug development process (including the use of retrospective and prospective approaches to baseline), and the structure is friendly to post-market registries as well. At the end of the baseline phase (A), patients are randomized a second time to either of two treatment conditions (i.e. test article vs. a true placebo/standard of care). In the C Phase, subjects cross over to the treatment not assigned in Phase B. These two condition levels are conceptually like a more traditional RCT but prospectively consider each participant as both control and experimental subject. The crossover from B to C phase’s accounts for order or carryover effects and, in the case where the test article was assigned, this arm represents a true “reversal” or ABA design. At predetermined points, interim analyses are scheduled and conducted, with a priori decision rules regarding continuation and/or modification (e.g. dose change). The final phase is an “open label” phase, which is offered only if the final analysis supports a positive treatment effect and ongoing monitoring (assessing real-world outcomes and patient challenges/barriers/ issues) for a given individual patient.

A Mock Pivotal Trial Multiple-Baseline Design

Figure 2: A Mock Pivotal Trial Multiple-Baseline Design

Abbreviations: NPC: Niemann-Picks Disease Type C.

• 3.8. Considerations and ConstraintsRate of clinical change. When considering the use of N of 1 and multiple baseline methods, the expected rate of change of the clinical condition and hypothesized treatment effects are important considerations (and informs decisions in the remainder of these considerations). Importantly, the expected rate or speed of change must be thought out when deciding upon a phase length (and any washout phases). Longer periods of change allow for the possible intrusion of confounding factors.

• Run in staggered baseline and clinical/ethical considerations. For conditions with an effective standard of care option (SOC), SOC can serve as the baseline. However, when treatment options are limited and the natural course of the disease is characterized by rapid decline; historical baselines can sometimes be employed to expedite initiation of the treatment phase. It is also a common misconception that the baseline phase must show stability (often interpreted to mean unchanging). N of 1 can accommodate trending baseline phases but is less robust when baseline data are erratic.

• Need for counterbalancing. Given that crossover elements are essential to the logic and efficiency of these designs, it is important to control for order or effects that may serve as confounds to interpretation of treatment effects in a given phase. Varying counterbalancing models such as Latin Square can be used, depending on the number and levels of the conditions being tested.

• Need for washout. When two (or more) active treatments are being compared, the crossover to the other treatment condition may first require a washout period based on the half-life of the medication(s) being tested.

 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Rigorously evaluating medications intended for rare conditions continues to be a methodological and regulatory challenge for the industry. By definition, the low prevalence rates that characterize rare diseases undermine the power to detect treatment effects using traditional statistical approaches within the classic phased drug development processes. FDA guidance to perform nontraditional studies creates the ‘broadest flexibility” for evaluation, which is needed, but also leaves the industry with ambiguous direction. This includes absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME), risks, toxicology, and unique study designs [FDA guidance doc].

In this article, we have presented three methodological design approaches that are not new but are infrequently used in clinical trials research and yet can add to the power and sensitivity of clinical efficacy testing when sample sizes are small (under powered by conventional statistical standards). Advancing a different perspective for a smaller number of individuals provides for the future of research and discovery in rare disease.

The approach described above aligns closely with the FDA guidance in the following ways:

1. This methodological approach employs an adaptive design whereby consecutive patients are enrolled and monitored such that early evidence informs subsequent phases from early safety testing through post-approval real-world outcomes monitoring.

2. Like more traditional approaches, N-of-1 can incorporate biological (genomic), behavioral, psychological, and digital health data such that users themselves can begin to evaluate the relationships of their own treatment response patterns and the contingencies that impact them.

3. Rigorous, statistically valid, natural history–controlled, cross-over, and n-of-1 trials can establish efficacy and support regulatory approval of new treatments for rare diseases [5]. This system accommodates traditional methodological controls for ensuring internal validity, including the two primary features of the classic RCT (i.e., randomization and blinding) while effectively optimizing the value of each patient as representing both control and treatment conditions (increasing power per patient and reducing inter-individual variability).

4. Substantial evidence: Thoughtful combination of the described design elements (when applied with consideration of the limitations) allows for strong causal conclusions when temporal contingency between onset of treatment and change in the primary (and/or secondary) outcomes with adequate power, comparison, and confound control.

5. N-of-1 approaches are truer to clinical practice than RCTs, by providing individualized feedback to each user (or clinician) about the quality and strength of their unique treatment response. For the clinician, this revitalized form of scientific and behavioral interaction evaluation can help them validate or reject the impact a given treatment has for a given patient with increased efficiency and accuracy [19].

REFERENCES

1. National Institute of Health, Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center (GARD). FAQs about Rare Diseases. 2019.

2. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Developing Products for Rare Diseases and Conditions. 2019.

3. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Rare Disease by the Numbers. 2019.

4. Richter T, Nestler-Parr S, Babela R, Khan ZM, Tesoro T, Molsen E, et al. Rare Disease Terminology and Definitions—A Systematic Global Review: Report of the ISPOR Rare Disease Special Interest Group. Value Health. 2015; 18: 906-914.

5. Gagne JJ, Thompson L, O’Keefe K, Kesselheim AS. Innovative research methods for studying treatments for rare disease: methodological review. BMJ. 2014; 349: g6802.

6. Hilgers RD, Konig F, Molenberghs G, Senn S. Design and analysis of clinical trials for small rare disease populations. J Rare Dis Res Treat. 2016; 1: 53-60.

7. McMenamin M, Berglind A, Wason JMS. Improving the analysis of composite endpoints in rare disease trials. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018; 13: 81.

8. Lillie EO, Patay B, Diamant J, Issell B, Topol EJ, Schork NJ. The n-of-1 trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine. Per Med. 2011; 8: 161-173.

9. HHS, FDA, CDER, CBER. Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials of Drugs and Biologics Guidance for Industry. 2018.

10. Chow SC, Chang M. Adaptive design methods in clinical trials – a review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2008; 3: 11.

11. Hawkins NG, Sanson-Fisher RW, Shakeshaft A, D’Este C, Green LW. The multiple baseline design for evaluating population-based research. Am J Prev Med. 2007; 33: 162-168.

12. Nikles CJ, Clavarino AM, Del Mar CB. Using n-of-1 trials as a clinical tool to improve prescribing. Br J Gen Pract. 2005; 55: 175-180.

13. Guidance for industry: Adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics. Washington DC, USA: Food and Drug Administration; 2010.

14. Mahajan R, Gupta K. Adaptive design clinical trials: Methodology, challenges and prospects. Indian J Pharmacol. 2010; 42: 201-207.

15. Vanier MT. Niemann-Pick disease type C. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2010; 5.

16. Walterfang M, Velakoulis D. Niemann-Pick Disease Type C in adulthood – A Psychiatric and Neurological Disorder. European Neurological Review. 2010; 5: 83-87.

17. Wadman M. Drug for rare disease disappoints in key trial.

18. Ory DS, Ottinger EA, Farhat NY, King KA, Jiang X, Weissfeld L, et al. Intrathecal 2-hydropropyl-β-cyclodexrin decreases neurological disease progression in Niemann-Pick disease type C1: a nonrandomized, open-label, phase 1-2 trial. Lancet. 2017; 390: 1758- 1768.

19. Nikles CJ, Clavarino AM, Del Mar CB. Using n-of-1 trials as a clinical tool to improve prescribing. Journal of General Practice. 2003; 55: 175-180.

Schwartz S, Chandanais R, Yazdanfar M (2019) A “Small” Data Approach to Evaluating Clinical Outcomes in Rare Disease. Int J Rare Dis Orph Drugs 3(1): 1008.

Received : 10 Jun 2019
Accepted : 06 Sep 2019
Published : 09 Sep 2019
Journals
Annals of Otolaryngology and Rhinology
ISSN : 2379-948X
Launched : 2014
JSM Schizophrenia
Launched : 2016
Journal of Nausea
Launched : 2020
JSM Internal Medicine
Launched : 2016
JSM Hepatitis
Launched : 2016
JSM Oro Facial Surgeries
ISSN : 2578-3211
Launched : 2016
Journal of Human Nutrition and Food Science
ISSN : 2333-6706
Launched : 2013
JSM Regenerative Medicine and Bioengineering
ISSN : 2379-0490
Launched : 2013
JSM Spine
ISSN : 2578-3181
Launched : 2016
Archives of Palliative Care
ISSN : 2573-1165
Launched : 2016
JSM Nutritional Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3203
Launched : 2017
Annals of Neurodegenerative Disorders
ISSN : 2476-2032
Launched : 2016
Journal of Fever
ISSN : 2641-7782
Launched : 2017
JSM Bone Marrow Research
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2016
JSM Mathematics and Statistics
ISSN : 2578-3173
Launched : 2014
Journal of Autoimmunity and Research
ISSN : 2573-1173
Launched : 2014
JSM Arthritis
ISSN : 2475-9155
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Neck Cancer-Cases and Reviews
ISSN : 2573-1610
Launched : 2016
JSM General Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2573-1564
Launched : 2016
JSM Anatomy and Physiology
ISSN : 2573-1262
Launched : 2016
JSM Dental Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1548
Launched : 2016
Annals of Emergency Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1017
Launched : 2016
Annals of Mens Health and Wellness
ISSN : 2641-7707
Launched : 2017
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Health Care
ISSN : 2576-0084
Launched : 2018
Journal of Chronic Diseases and Management
ISSN : 2573-1300
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vaccines and Immunization
ISSN : 2378-9379
Launched : 2014
JSM Heart Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2578-3157
Launched : 2016
Annals of Reproductive Medicine and Treatment
ISSN : 2573-1092
Launched : 2016
JSM Brain Science
ISSN : 2573-1289
Launched : 2016
JSM Biomarkers
ISSN : 2578-3815
Launched : 2014
JSM Biology
ISSN : 2475-9392
Launched : 2016
Archives of Stem Cell and Research
ISSN : 2578-3580
Launched : 2014
Annals of Clinical and Medical Microbiology
ISSN : 2578-3629
Launched : 2014
JSM Pediatric Surgery
ISSN : 2578-3149
Launched : 2017
Journal of Memory Disorder and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-319X
Launched : 2016
JSM Tropical Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2578-3165
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Face Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3793
Launched : 2016
JSM Cardiothoracic Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1297
Launched : 2016
JSM Bone and Joint Diseases
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2017
JSM Bioavailability and Bioequivalence
ISSN : 2641-7812
Launched : 2017
JSM Atherosclerosis
ISSN : 2573-1270
Launched : 2016
Journal of Genitourinary Disorders
ISSN : 2641-7790
Launched : 2017
Journal of Fractures and Sprains
ISSN : 2578-3831
Launched : 2016
Journal of Autism and Epilepsy
ISSN : 2641-7774
Launched : 2016
Annals of Marine Biology and Research
ISSN : 2573-105X
Launched : 2014
JSM Health Education & Primary Health Care
ISSN : 2578-3777
Launched : 2016
JSM Communication Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3807
Launched : 2016
Annals of Musculoskeletal Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3599
Launched : 2016
Annals of Virology and Research
ISSN : 2573-1122
Launched : 2014
JSM Renal Medicine
ISSN : 2573-1637
Launched : 2016
Journal of Muscle Health
ISSN : 2578-3823
Launched : 2016
JSM Genetics and Genomics
ISSN : 2334-1823
Launched : 2013
JSM Anxiety and Depression
ISSN : 2475-9139
Launched : 2016
Clinical Journal of Heart Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7766
Launched : 2016
Annals of Medicinal Chemistry and Research
ISSN : 2378-9336
Launched : 2014
JSM Pain and Management
ISSN : 2578-3378
Launched : 2016
JSM Women's Health
ISSN : 2578-3696
Launched : 2016
Clinical Research in HIV or AIDS
ISSN : 2374-0094
Launched : 2013
Journal of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity
ISSN : 2333-6692
Launched : 2013
Journal of Substance Abuse and Alcoholism
ISSN : 2373-9363
Launched : 2013
JSM Neurosurgery and Spine
ISSN : 2373-9479
Launched : 2013
Journal of Liver and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2379-0830
Launched : 2014
Journal of Drug Design and Research
ISSN : 2379-089X
Launched : 2014
JSM Clinical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2373-938X
Launched : 2013
JSM Bioinformatics, Genomics and Proteomics
ISSN : 2576-1102
Launched : 2014
JSM Chemistry
ISSN : 2334-1831
Launched : 2013
Journal of Trauma and Care
ISSN : 2573-1246
Launched : 2014
JSM Surgical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2578-3688
Launched : 2016
Annals of Food Processing and Preservation
ISSN : 2573-1033
Launched : 2016
Journal of Radiology and Radiation Therapy
ISSN : 2333-7095
Launched : 2013
JSM Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-3572
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical Pathology
ISSN : 2373-9282
Launched : 2013
Annals of Cardiovascular Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7731
Launched : 2016
Journal of Behavior
ISSN : 2576-0076
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical and Experimental Metabolism
ISSN : 2572-2492
Launched : 2016
Clinical Research in Infectious Diseases
ISSN : 2379-0636
Launched : 2013
JSM Microbiology
ISSN : 2333-6455
Launched : 2013
Journal of Urology and Research
ISSN : 2379-951X
Launched : 2014
Journal of Family Medicine and Community Health
ISSN : 2379-0547
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pregnancy and Care
ISSN : 2578-336X
Launched : 2017
JSM Cell and Developmental Biology
ISSN : 2379-061X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Aquaculture and Research
ISSN : 2379-0881
Launched : 2014
Clinical Research in Pulmonology
ISSN : 2333-6625
Launched : 2013
Journal of Immunology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6714
Launched : 2013
Annals of Forensic Research and Analysis
ISSN : 2378-9476
Launched : 2014
JSM Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
ISSN : 2333-7109
Launched : 2013
Annals of Breast Cancer Research
ISSN : 2641-7685
Launched : 2016
Annals of Gerontology and Geriatric Research
ISSN : 2378-9409
Launched : 2014
Journal of Sleep Medicine and Disorders
ISSN : 2379-0822
Launched : 2014
JSM Burns and Trauma
ISSN : 2475-9406
Launched : 2016
Chemical Engineering and Process Techniques
ISSN : 2333-6633
Launched : 2013
Annals of Clinical Cytology and Pathology
ISSN : 2475-9430
Launched : 2014
JSM Allergy and Asthma
ISSN : 2573-1254
Launched : 2016
Journal of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
ISSN : 2334-2307
Launched : 2013
Annals of Sports Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2379-0571
Launched : 2014
JSM Sexual Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3718
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vascular Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-9344
Launched : 2014
JSM Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering
ISSN : 2333-7117
Launched : 2013
Journal of Hematology and Transfusion
ISSN : 2333-6684
Launched : 2013
JSM Environmental Science and Ecology
ISSN : 2333-7141
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cardiology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6676
Launched : 2013
JSM Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine
ISSN : 2334-1815
Launched : 2013
Journal of Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders
ISSN : 2475-9473
Launched : 2016
JSM Ophthalmology
ISSN : 2333-6447
Launched : 2013
Journal of Pharmacology and Clinical Toxicology
ISSN : 2333-7079
Launched : 2013
Annals of Psychiatry and Mental Health
ISSN : 2374-0124
Launched : 2013
Medical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN : 2333-6439
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pediatrics and Child Health
ISSN : 2373-9312
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Pharmaceutics
ISSN : 2379-9498
Launched : 2014
JSM Foot and Ankle
ISSN : 2475-9112
Launched : 2016
JSM Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia
ISSN : 2378-9565
Launched : 2014
Journal of Addiction Medicine and Therapy
ISSN : 2333-665X
Launched : 2013
Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-931X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Public Health and Research
ISSN : 2378-9328
Launched : 2014
Annals of Orthopedics and Rheumatology
ISSN : 2373-9290
Launched : 2013
Journal of Clinical Nephrology and Research
ISSN : 2379-0652
Launched : 2014
Annals of Community Medicine and Practice
ISSN : 2475-9465
Launched : 2014
Annals of Biometrics and Biostatistics
ISSN : 2374-0116
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Case Reports
ISSN : 2373-9819
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cancer Biology and Research
ISSN : 2373-9436
Launched : 2013
Journal of Surgery and Transplantation Science
ISSN : 2379-0911
Launched : 2013
Journal of Dermatology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2373-9371
Launched : 2013
JSM Gastroenterology and Hepatology
ISSN : 2373-9487
Launched : 2013
Annals of Nursing and Practice
ISSN : 2379-9501
Launched : 2014
JSM Dentistry
ISSN : 2333-7133
Launched : 2013
Author Information X