Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37762059›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2023

Gene Therapy in Hereditary Retinal Dystrophies: The Usefulness of Diagnostic Tools in Candidate Patient Selections.

Mariaelena Malvasi, Lorenzo Casillo, Filippo Avogaro, Alessandro Abbouda, Enzo Maria Vingolo

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Broadening horizons: Pathogenesis and therapeutics of renal ciliopathies.Journal of cell communication and signaling · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The role of full-field stimulus threshold in evaluating Bietti crystalline dystrophy.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Observational
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. The value of genetic testing in pediatric and adult ophthalmology.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mariaelena MalvasiDepartment of Sense Organs, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1190-9733
Lorenzo CasilloDepartment of Sense Organs, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6265-5921
Filippo AvogaroDepartment of Sense Organs, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7475-5145
Alessandro AbboudaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Fiorini Hospital Terracina AUSL, 04019 Terracina, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8582-4823
Enzo Maria VingoloDepartment of Sense Organs, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8363-5866
Sapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGene therapy actually seems to have promising results in the treatment of Leber Congenital Amaurosis and some different inherited retinal diseases (IRDs); the primary goal of this strategy is to change gene defects with a wild-type gene without defects in a DNA sequence to achieve partial recovery of the photoreceptor function and, consequently, partially restore lost retinal functions. This approach led to the introduction of a new drug (voretigene neparvovec-rzyl) for replacement of the RPE65 gene in patients affected by Leber Congenital Amaurosis (LCA); however, the treatment results are inconstant and with variable long-lasting effects due to a lack of correctly evaluating the anatomical and functional conditions of residual photoreceptors. These variabilities may also be related to host immunoreactive reactions towards the Adenovirus-associated vector. A broad spectrum of retinal dystrophies frequently generates doubt as to whether the disease or the patient is a good candidate for a successful gene treatment, because, very often, different diseases share similar genetic characteristics, causing an inconstant genotype/phenotype correlation between clinical characteristics also within the same family. For example, mutations on the RPE65 gene cause Leber Congenital Amaurosis (LCA) but also some forms of Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP), Bardet Biedl Syndrome (BBS), Congenital Stationary Night Blindness (CSNB) and Usher syndrome (USH), with a very wide spectrum of clinical manifestations. These confusing elements are due to the different pathways in which the product protein (retinoid isomer-hydrolase) is involved and, consequently, the overlapping metabolism in retinal function. Considering this point and the cost of the drug (over USD one hundred thousand), it would be mandatory to follow guidelines or algorithms to assess the best-fitting disease and candidate patients to maximize the output. Unfortunately, at the moment, there are no suggestions regarding who to treat with gene therapy. Moreover, gene therapy might be helpful in other forms of inherited retinal dystrophies, with more frequent incidence of the disease and better functional conditions (actually, gene therapy is proposed only for patients with poor vision, considering possible side effects due to the treatment procedures), in which this approach leads to better function and, hopefully, visual restoration. But, in this view, who might be a disease candidate or patient to undergo gene therapy, in relationship to the onset of clinical trials for several different forms of IRD? Further, what is the gold standard for tests able to correctly select the patient? Our work aims to evaluate clinical considerations on instrumental morphofunctional tests to assess candidate subjects for treatment and correlate them with clinical and genetic defect analysis that, often, is not correspondent. We try to define which parameters are an essential and indispensable part of the clinical rationale to select patients with IRDs for gene therapy. This review will describe a series of models used to characterize retinal morphology and function from tests, such as optical coherence tomography (OCT) and electrophysiological evaluation (ERG), and its evaluation as a primary outcome in clinical trials. A secondary aim is to propose an ancillary clinical classification of IRDs and their accessibility based on gene therapy's current state of the art. MATERIAL AND

methodsOCT, ERG, and visual field examinations were performed in different forms of IRDs, classified based on clinical and retinal conditions; compared to the gene defect classification, we utilized a diagnostic algorithm for the clinical classification based on morphofunctional information of the retina of patients, which could significantly improve diagnostic accuracy and, consequently, help the ophthalmologist to make a correct diagnosis to achieve optimal clinical results. These considerations are very helpful in selecting IRD patients who might respond to gene therapy with possible therapeutic success and filter out those in which treatment has a lower chance or no chance of positive results due to bad retinal conditions, avoiding time-consuming patient management with unsatisfactory results.

Indexed as

Leber Congenital AmaurosisRetinal DystrophiesGenetic TherapyHumansPatient SelectionRetinaBardet Biedl syndromecongenital stationary night blindnessERGgene therapyLeber congenital amaurosisOCTretinitis pigmentosausher syndrome

Identifiers

PMID37762059
PMCPMC10531171
OpenAlexW4386476014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.