SynthesisClinical & experimental ophthalmology2025
Retinal Viral Gene Therapy: Impact of Route of Administration on Serious Adverse Events-A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Clinical & experimental ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Retinal Viral Gene Therapy: Impact of Route of Administration on Serious Adverse Events-A Systematic Review.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Storage and Stability of AAV-Containing Fibrin Hydrogels for Retinal Gene Therapy.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo 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.
methodsLiterature 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.
resultsOf 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.
conclusionsSubretinal 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.
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.