Cited by 463Retinal Development and DisordersVirus-based gene therapy researchRetinal Diseases and Treatments

Safety and durability of effect of contralateral-eye administration of AAV2 gene therapy in patients with childhood-onset blindness caused by RPE65 mutations: a follow-on phase 1 trial

Open access
Bennett, Jean, Wellman, Jennifer, Marshall, Kathleen A, McCague, Sarah, Ashtari, Manzar, DiStefano-Pappas, Julie, Elci, Okan U, Chung, Daniel C +14 more·2016·The Lancet

Abstract

Background Safety and efficacy have been shown in a phase 1 dose-escalation study involving a unilateral subretinal injection of a recombinant adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector containing the RPE65 gene (AAV2-hRPE65v2) in individuals with inherited retinal dystrophy caused by RPE65 mutations. This finding, along with the bilateral nature of the disease and intended use in treatment, prompted us to determine the safety of administration of AAV2-hRPE65v2 to the contralateral eye in patients enrolled in the phase 1 study.Methods In this follow-on phase 1 trial, one dose of AAV2-hRPE65v2 (1.5 × 10(11) vector genomes) in a total volume of 300 μL was subretinally injected into the contralateral, previously uninjected, eyes of 11 children and adults (aged 11-46 years at second administration) with inherited retinal dystrophy caused by RPE65 mutations, 1.71-4.58 years after the initial subretinal injection. We assessed safety, immune response, retinal and visual function, functional vision, and activation of the visual cortex from baseline until 3 year follow-up, with observations ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01208389.Findings No adverse events related to the AAV were reported, and those related to the procedure were mostly mild (dellen formation in three patients and cataracts in two). One patient developed bacterial endophthalmitis and was excluded from analyses. We noted improvements in efficacy outcomes in most patients without significant immunogenicity. Compared with baseline, pooled analysis of ten participants showed improvements in mean mobility and full-field light sensitivity in the injected eye by day 30 that persisted to year 3 (mobility p=0.0003, white light full-field sensitivity p<0.0001), but no significant change was seen in the previously injected eyes over the same time period (mobility p=0.7398, white light full-field sensitivity p=0.6709). Changes in visual acuity from baseline to year 3 were not significant in pooled analysis in the second eyes or the previously injected eyes (p>0.49 for all time-points compared with baseline).Interpretation To our knowledge, AAV2-hRPE65v2 is the first successful gene therapy administered to the contralateral eye. The results highlight the use of several outcome measures and help to delineate the variables that contribute to maximal benefit from gene augmentation therapy in this disease.Funding Center for Cellular and Molecular Therapeutics at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Spark Therapeutics, US National Institutes of Health, Foundation Fighting Blindness, Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics, Research to Prevent Blindness, Center for Advanced Retinal and Ocular Therapeutics, Mackall Foundation Trust, F M Kirby Foundation, and The Research Foundation-Flanders.

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 · 10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30371-3

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • Pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AAV do not appear to correlate with a higher risk of retinal inflammation or reduced therapeutic efficacy when the AAV vector is delivered via the subretinal route.

    “However, the presence of pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AAV does not appear to correlate with a higher risk of retinal inflammation or reduced therapeutic efficacy, provided that the AAV vector is delivered via the subretinal route.27, 28, 29”

    From Characterizing the cellular immune response to subretinal AAV gene therapy in the murine retina (2021) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Results report that two patients with high baseline neutralising antibodies to AAV2 had no inflammation. The Discussion reports benefit despite pre-existing antibodies, but also notes that one of the two high-titre patients did not improve. These findings support the cautious claim for this particular subretinal AAV2 treatment, but do not establish a lack of association with reduced efficacy across subretinal AAV treatments generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the Bennett et al. trial of second-eye subretinal AAV2.CAG.hRPE65 at an identical dose to the first eye, apart from one participant who developed culture-positive bacterial endophthalmitis, no participants demonstrated intraocular inflammation or CRA within three years of second-eye treatment.

    “Apart from one participant who unfortunately devel­ oped culture-positive bacterial endophthalmitis after surgery, no par­ ticipants demonstrated intraocular inflammation or CRA within three years of second eye treatment.”

    From Gene Therapy-Associated Uveitis (GTAU): Understanding and mitigating the adverse immune response in retinal gene therapy (2025) · cites this paper as Bennett et al., 2016

    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
  • In the clinical setting, ocular and intrathecal AAV gene delivery have shown limited transgene-related immune responses, possibly due to their compartmentation and reduced antigen presentation.

    “Furthermore, in the clinical setting, ocular and intrathecal AAV gene delivery have shown limited transgene-related immune responses, possibly due to their compartmentation and reduced antigen presentation [16, 132, 133].”
  • Phase I-III trials of Luxturna consistently showed sustained improvements in low-light vision in patients who were otherwise blind.

    “Phase I to III clinical trials for Luxturna have consistently demonstrated its ability to bring about sustained improvements in low luminance vision in otherwise blind patients [Maguire 2009; Bennett 2016; Russell 2017].”

    From Correcting visual loss by genetics and prosthetics (2020) · cites this paper as Bennett 2016

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

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bennett, J., Wellman, J., Marshall, K. A., McCague, S., Ashtari, M., DiStefano-Pappas, J., Elci, O. U., Chung, D. C., Sun, J., Wright, J. F., Cross, D. R., Aravand, P., Cyckowski, L. L., Bennicelli, J. L., Mingozzi, F., Auricchio, A., Pierce, E. A., Ruggiero, J., Leroy, B. P., Simonelli, F., High, K. A., & Maguire, A. M.
Affiliations
  • Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
  • Spark Therapeutics (United States) (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Federico II University Hospital (IT)
  • Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (US)
  • University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (IT)
Corresponding author
Bennett, Jean
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-08
Volume
388
Issue
10045
Pages
661-672
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2473832992
Cited by
461
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
27.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (submittedVersion)
Funders
FWO Flanders (grant OZP 3G004306)
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
RPE65 mutations, inherited retinal disease, subretinal gene therapy, recombinant adeno-associated virus vectors, immune response, visual function, mobility, visual cortex activation, pediatric patients
MeSH terms
Retinoid Isomerohydrolase, Dependovirus, Adolescent, Adult, Blindness, Child, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Genetic Vectors, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mutation, Occipital Lobe, Vision, Ocular, Genetic Therapy, Linear Models, Age of Onset, Retinal Rod Photoreceptor Cells, Retinal Cone Photoreceptor Cells, Retreatment, Evidence-Based Medicine, cis-trans-Isomerases, Injections, Intraocular, Administration, Ophthalmic, Patient Safety

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