ReviewMolecular therapy. Methods & clinical development2025
Nonclinical strategies and considerations to enable the redosing of gene therapies.
Review in Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reprogramming innate immunity through viral interference: A double-edged strategy for enhancing and containing gene therapies.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2026Review
- Safety of Adeno-Associated Viral Vectors in Gene Therapy: Mechanisms of Toxicity, Clinical Risks, and Strategies for Their Minimization.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Base and Prime Editing for Inherited Retinal Diseases: Delivery Platforms, Safety, Efficacy, and Translational Perspectives.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adeno-associated viral therapies offer the potential for many years of gene expression, yet some patients could benefit from subsequent doses to achieve or maintain an effective response. Reasons for inadequate or waning efficacy include immune response to the vector or transgene, insufficient dose for ideal therapeutic expression, and waning expression. Strategies to overcome these factors are needed to maximize the benefits of gene therapy through redosing of patients who did not fully benefit from a single dose. Maintenance dosing is also important to counteract any decrease in efficacy caused by cell turnover or disease progression. Current gene therapies administered systemically cannot be readministered due to an immune response against the delivery vector. The immune response can eliminate the vector from circulation, targeting transduced cells for removal and/or can lead to adverse immune reactions. However, new immune modifying techniques and emerging delivery platforms are being developed to overcome these limitations. Despite these advances, there is currently no regulatory guidance on how to design nonclinical studies to enable clinical redosing. This article provides an overview of potential therapeutic approaches to address redosing and proposes nonclinical strategies to support clinical development of gene therapies intended for repeated administration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.