ReviewDiscovery medicine2017
Pressing diseases that represent promising targets for gene therapy.
Review in Discovery medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Plant Viruses and Bacteriophage-Based Reagents for Diagnosis and Therapy.Annual review of virology · 2020Review
- Gene Therapy Today and Tomorrow.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Viral Vectors in Gene Therapy.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- Nano Approaches to Nucleic Acid Delivery: Barriers, Solutions, and Current Landscape.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Over time, there has been a growing interest in the application of gene therapy within the healthcare industry as demonstrated by the nearly 3,000 clinical trials associated with gene therapy that are listed in clinicaltrials.gov. However, there are various difficulties associated with gene therapy that have limited the realization of licensed gene therapies to only a handful of treatments. Furthermore, efforts to develop gene therapeutics have been narrowly focused and most clinical trials have sought to develop treatments for cancer (64.6%), monogenic diseases (10.5%), infectious diseases (7.4%), and cardiovascular diseases (7.4%). In addition, nearly 70% of clinical trials have utilized viral-based delivery systems, despite various concerns associated with this strategy. Each of these factors highlights the lack of diversity in the development of gene therapeutics that should be addressed. In recent years, developments in gene manipulation and delivery such as CRISPR and non-viral vectors (e.g., liposomes) demonstrate promise for improving outcomes for gene therapy. The increased fidelity and capacity afforded by these technologies provide the potential to improve upon contemporary gene therapy approaches and enable the development of treatments for less-emphasized disorders. In this review, we provide a summary of gene delivery technology and discuss various developments in gene therapy technology. We conclude by proposing several genetic conditions that represent promising targets for gene therapy given recent developments in gene delivery and manipulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29373809PMC9890200What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.