ReviewResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2026
Roctavian withdrawal: exploring the gap between innovation and healthcare system readiness in hemophilia A gene therapy.
Review in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The voluntary withdrawal of valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian) represents an inflection point in hemophilia A gene therapy. Notably, this decision was not driven by safety or efficacy concerns, but by challenges to economic sustainability, market access, and healthcare system readiness. This paper examines the clinical evidence supporting gene therapy, including durability and safety, and highlights how uncertainty in long-term transgene expression complicates both clinical management and economic evaluation. The Roctavian case is not isolated but reflects a broader pattern observed across gene therapies, where high costs, limited uptake, and system-level constraints have led to market withdrawal or restricted access. These dynamics reveal a gap between scientific innovation and healthcare delivery, suggesting that the barriers to gene therapy are not biological but structural. Addressing this gap will require not only technological advances but also sustainable reimbursement models, coordinated long-term follow-up infrastructure, and healthcare systems capable of supporting advanced therapies beyond their approval.
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.