Retinal Viral Gene Therapy: Impact of Route of Administration on Serious Adverse Events-A Systematic Review.

IF 5.6 2区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Aubrey Berger, Ciera D Johnson, Alan D Marmorstein, Brittni A Scruggs
{"title":"Retinal Viral Gene Therapy: Impact of Route of Administration on Serious Adverse Events-A Systematic Review.","authors":"Aubrey Berger, Ciera D Johnson, Alan D Marmorstein, Brittni A Scruggs","doi":"10.1111/ceo.14593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To explore the prevalence of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with retinal viral gene therapy and to examine trends influencing SAE occurrences in human gene therapy surgeries and pre-clinical animal trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Literature review was performed to identify peer-reviewed human and animal studies relevant to viral gene therapy, subretinal injections, and intravitreal injections. For clinical trials and post-approval LUXTURNA studies, only those that examined SAEs were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of included clinical trial studies (n = 31), SAEs were recorded in 51 out of 438 eyes (11.6%) that received subretinal injections and in 11 out of 348 eyes (3.2%) that received intravitreal injections. There were fewer intravitreal-related SAEs and less vision loss compared to subretinal gene therapy. Inflammation was the predominant SAE following intravitreal injections, whereas unexplained vision loss was the most common for subretinal injections. Clinical trials utilising subretinal injections met primary or secondary efficacy endpoints more than intravitreal trials. Eighteen studies (429 eyes) of post-approval LUXTURNA were reviewed, and SAEs were reported in 24.7% of eyes, retinal degeneration being most common (20.7%). For 58 animal studies, SAEs were recorded in 17.3% of eyes that received subretinal injections and 8.7% of eyes that received intravitreal injections.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Subretinal injections show higher efficacy than intravitreal injections but are associated with more serious adverse events. Consistent adverse event patterns in humans and large animals highlight their predictive value for safety. There is a need for optimised delivery methods, refined dosing protocols, and improved post-treatment monitoring to improve safety and effectiveness in gene therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":55253,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.14593","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To explore the prevalence of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with retinal viral gene therapy and to examine trends influencing SAE occurrences in human gene therapy surgeries and pre-clinical animal trials.

Methods: Literature review was performed to identify peer-reviewed human and animal studies relevant to viral gene therapy, subretinal injections, and intravitreal injections. For clinical trials and post-approval LUXTURNA studies, only those that examined SAEs were included.

Results: Of included clinical trial studies (n = 31), SAEs were recorded in 51 out of 438 eyes (11.6%) that received subretinal injections and in 11 out of 348 eyes (3.2%) that received intravitreal injections. There were fewer intravitreal-related SAEs and less vision loss compared to subretinal gene therapy. Inflammation was the predominant SAE following intravitreal injections, whereas unexplained vision loss was the most common for subretinal injections. Clinical trials utilising subretinal injections met primary or secondary efficacy endpoints more than intravitreal trials. Eighteen studies (429 eyes) of post-approval LUXTURNA were reviewed, and SAEs were reported in 24.7% of eyes, retinal degeneration being most common (20.7%). For 58 animal studies, SAEs were recorded in 17.3% of eyes that received subretinal injections and 8.7% of eyes that received intravitreal injections.

Conclusions: Subretinal injections show higher efficacy than intravitreal injections but are associated with more serious adverse events. Consistent adverse event patterns in humans and large animals highlight their predictive value for safety. There is a need for optimised delivery methods, refined dosing protocols, and improved post-treatment monitoring to improve safety and effectiveness in gene therapy.

视网膜病毒基因治疗:给药途径对严重不良事件的影响——一项系统综述。
背景:探讨与视网膜病毒基因治疗相关的严重不良事件(SAEs)的发生率,并研究影响人类基因治疗手术和临床前动物试验中严重不良事件发生的趋势。方法:进行文献综述,以确定与病毒基因治疗、视网膜下注射和玻璃体内注射相关的同行评审的人类和动物研究。对于临床试验和批准后的LUXTURNA研究,仅包括那些检查sae的研究。结果:在纳入的临床试验研究(n = 31)中,接受视网膜下注射的438只眼中有51只(11.6%)发生了SAEs,接受玻璃体内注射的348只眼中有11只(3.2%)发生了SAEs。与视网膜下基因治疗相比,玻璃体内相关的SAEs更少,视力下降更少。炎症是玻璃体内注射后主要的SAE,而不明原因的视力丧失是视网膜下注射最常见的。使用视网膜下注射的临床试验比玻璃体内试验更能达到主要或次要疗效终点。LUXTURNA获批后的18项研究(429只眼睛)进行了回顾,24.7%的眼睛报告了SAEs,其中视网膜变性最常见(20.7%)。在58项动物研究中,17.3%接受视网膜下注射的眼睛和8.7%接受玻璃体内注射的眼睛记录了SAEs。结论:视网膜下注射比玻璃体内注射更有效,但与更严重的不良事件相关。在人类和大型动物中一致的不良事件模式突出了它们对安全性的预测价值。需要优化给药方法、改进给药方案和改进治疗后监测,以提高基因治疗的安全性和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
150
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology is the official journal of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original research and reviews dealing with all aspects of clinical practice and research which are international in scope and application. CEO recognises the importance of collaborative research and welcomes papers that have a direct influence on ophthalmic practice but are not unique to ophthalmology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信