ArticleGene therapy2026
Characteristics of long-term follow-up studies for gene therapies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.
Article in Gene therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies recommends long-term follow-up (LTFU) studies of gene therapy recipients. The primary objective of LTFU studies is to understand the long-term safety of gene therapy products; evaluation of efficacy outcomes may be a secondary goal. To learn more about LTFU study design and conduct, we conducted a descriptive study of key characteristics of LTFU gene therapy study protocols registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, including data about status and duration, funding source, enrollment, number of clinical trial sites per study, eligibility criteria, geographic location, and intent to monitor and report adverse events. This analysis enabled a better understanding of how registered LTFU studies are currently designed and stimulated ideas for improvement, which are discussed. Most notably, our results suggest that there is a lack of harmonization in how safety outcomes are monitored and reported across LTFU studies. Standardization and/or harmonization of outcome reporting for LTFU studies of GTs may increase their scientific value. The development of better guidance and innovative approaches for LTFU study design and conduct would help support best practices and the fulfillment of LTFU commitments to understand the overall long-term benefit-risk profile of GT products.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41125943What 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.