ReviewJournal of blood medicine2026
Current Status of Clinical Gene Therapy for Hemophilia and Globin Disorders.
Review in Journal of blood medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Gene therapy for hereditary hematological disorders: From clinical breakthroughs to future horizons.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the last few years, gene therapy, holding the promise for long-term disease correction through a one-time treatment, has transitioned from experimental research to approved medicine. Several gene therapies are now available for congenital blood disorders, notably for hemophilia and hemoglobinopathies. In this review, we discuss each of the six therapies that now have regulatory approval for treatment in the United States: Roctavian (valoctocogene roxaparvovec) for hemophilia A, Beqvez (fidanacogene elaparvovec) and Hemgenix (etranacogene dezaparvovec) for hemophilia B, Lyfgenia (lovotibeglogene autotemcel) for sickle cell disease, Zynteglo (betibeglogene autotemcel) for β-thalassemia, and Casgevy (exagamglogene autotemcel) for either sickle cell disease or β-thalassemia. The underlying principles for these treatments vary and include both in vivo and ex vivo methods, lentiviral and adeno-associated viral (AAV) vectors, and gene silencing by the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing system. Consequently, they pose correspondingly disparate risks and benefits when compared to other treatment modalities and to each other. Although long-term effects are not yet entirely understood, given the novelty of these therapies, knowledge on patient outcomes is continuously increasing. Overall, results are very encouraging, often freeing patients from the need for coagulation factor or red blood cell (RBC) infusions, albeit that for some of these diseases there is room for further improvement in terms of safety and therapeutic durability, which may be achieved with next-generation gene therapy products. However, improvements are needed to address issues with durability of results, side effects, and accessibility of these therapies.
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.