Cited by 639Retinal Development and DisordersVirus-based gene therapy researchRetinal Diseases and Treatments

Gene Therapy for Leber Congenital Amaurosis Caused by RPE65 Mutations: Safety and Efficacy in 15 Children and Adults Followed Up to 3 Years

Open access
Jacobson, Samuel G.·2012·Archives of Ophthalmology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of subretinal gene therapy in the RPE65 form of Leber congenital amaurosis using recombinant adeno-associated virus 2 (rAAV2) carrying the RPE65 gene. DESIGN: Open-label, dose-escalation phase I study of 15 patients (range, 11-30 years of age) evaluated after subretinal injection of the rAAV2- RPE65 vector into the worse-functioning eye. Five cohorts represented 4 dose levels and 2 different injection strategies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were systemic and ocular safety. Secondary outcomes assayed visual function with dark-adapted full-field sensitivity testing and visual acuity with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study charts. Further assays included immune responses to the vector, static visual fields, pupillometry, mobility performance, and optical coherence tomography. RESULTS: No systemic toxicity was detected; ocular adverse events were related to surgery. Visual function improved in all patients to different degrees; improvements were localized to treated areas. Cone and rod sensitivities increased significantly in the study eyes but not in the control eyes. Minor acuity improvements were recorded in many study and control eyes. Major acuity improvements occurred in study eyes with the lowest entry acuities and parafoveal fixation loci treated with subretinal injections. Other patients with better foveal structure lost retinal thickness and acuity after subfoveal injections. CONCLUSIONS: Gene therapy for Leber congenital amaurosis caused by RPE65 mutations is sufficiently safe and substantially efficacious in the extrafoveal retina. There is no benefit and some risk in treating the fovea. No evidence of age-dependent effects was found. Our results point to specific treatment strategies for subsequent phases. APPLICATION TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Gene therapy for inherited retinal disease has the potential to become a future part of clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00481546.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.298

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ochacovski et al showed that subretinal injection in non-human primates can cause mild thinning of the outer layers of the fovea in comparison with an intravitreal injection of the same vector.

    “Ochacovski et al89 have shown that subretinal injection, in NHPs, can cause mild thinning of the outer layers of the fovea in comparison with an intravitreal injection of the same vector.89,90”

    From Ocular Gene Therapy: A Literature Review with Special Focus on Immune and Inflammatory Responses (2022) · cites this paper as [89]

    The Results (Visual Acuity, Fixation and Foveal Optical Coherence Tomography; page not provided) report foveal thinning in some patients after subretinal injection. The paper studies humans with RPE65-related disease, however; it does not report an Ochacovski study in non-human primates or compare subretinal with intravitreal injection of the same vector. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Wild-type AAV-based gene therapies for ophthalmologic indications generally require relatively high doses and/or administration via subretinal injection, an invasive surgical procedure that requires detachment of photoreceptors from the RPE and reportedly results in transduction of less than 5% of the retinal surface.

    “As a consequence, wild-type AAV-based gene therapies for ophthalmologic indications generally require relatively high doses and/or administration via subretinal injection, an invasive surgical procedure that requires detachment of photoreceptors from the RPE and reportedly results in transduction of <5% of the retinal surface. 25 – 27”

    From Design and Characterization of a Novel Intravitreal Dual-Transgene Genetic Medicine for Neovascular Retinopathies (2024) · cites this paper as [25]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Subretinal AAV2 RPE65 trials in LCA showed sustained improvement in subjective and objective vision in over 30 patients.

    “during Phase I/II clinical trials for Leber's congenital amaurosis (LCA), over 30 patients who received a subretinal injection of AAV2 encoding RPE65, an enzyme responsible for the isomerohydrolase activity of retinal pigment epithelium, showed sustained improvement in both subjective and objective measurements of vision.8–14”

    From Antibody neutralization poses a barrier to intravitreal adeno-associated viral vector gene delivery to non-human primates (2015) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Design passage describes subretinal AAV2-RPE65 treatment in 15 patients, and the Comment reports improved visual function on full-field stimulus testing in all 15, with follow-up extending to three years for the initial cohort. This paper does not establish sustained improvement in both subjective and objective vision measures in over 30 patients; its Results also caution that most visual-acuity changes were not clinically significant. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Increasing the total dose delivered to the eye but dividing AAV particles across more than one subretinal bleb appears to have little impact on the intraocular and systemic immune response compared to if the viral particles were concentrated within a single bleb.

    “Based on the results from small cohort studies, increasing the total dose delivered to the eye but dividing AAV particles across more than one subretinal bleb appears to have little impact on the intraocular and systemic immune response compared to if the viral particles were concentrated within a single bleb (Jacobson et al., 2012; Ghazi et al., 2016; Weleber et al., 2016; Le Meur et al.”

    From Gene Therapy-Associated Uveitis (GTAU): Understanding and mitigating the adverse immune response in retinal gene therapy (2025) · cites this paper as Jacobson et al., 2012

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Bleb fusion may lead to retinal detachment and additional surgery.

    “However, caution to avoid bleb fusion is required as this may lead to retinal detachment and additional surgery (Jacobson et al., 2012).”

    From Gene Therapy-Associated Uveitis (GTAU): Understanding and mitigating the adverse immune response in retinal gene therapy (2025) · cites this paper as Jacobson et al., 2012

    The Results (Study Population, Adverse Events and Complications; page unavailable) report that P7 developed a postoperative retinal detachment near the subretinal injection site and required surgical repair. The paper does not identify bleb fusion as the cause or say that avoiding bleb fusion would prevent this complication. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jacobson, S. G.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Jacobson, Samuel G.
Venue
Archives of Ophthalmology
Published
2012-01-01
Volume
130
Issue
1
Pages
9
ISSN
0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2152853777
Cited by
639
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 74 · 2014: 68 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 44
FWCI
21.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (P30EY021721, U10EY017280)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Retinal Development and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Virus-based gene therapy research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
Keywords
Leber congenital amaurosis, RPE65 mutations, subretinal gene therapy, recombinant adeno-associated virus 2, inherited retinal disease, visual function, visual acuity, dose escalation
MeSH terms
Retinoid Isomerohydrolase, Dependovirus, Adolescent, Adult, Carrier Proteins, Child, Eye Proteins, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Genetic Vectors, Humans, Male, Mutation, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Pupil, Visual Acuity, Visual Fields, Genetic Therapy, Treatment Outcome, cis-trans-Isomerases, Photoreceptor Cells, Vertebrate, Tomography, Optical Coherence, Young Adult, Injections, Intraocular, Leber Congenital Amaurosis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review