Cited by 185Retinal Development and DisordersVirus-based gene therapy researchRetinal Diseases and Treatments

Beneficial effects on vision in patients undergoing retinal gene therapy for choroideremia

Open access
Xue, Kanmin, Jolly, Jasleen K, Barnard, Alun R., Rudenko, Anna, Salvetti, Anna P., Patrício, Maria I., Edwards, Thomas L., Groppe, Markus +9 more·2018·Nature Medicine

Abstract

Retinal gene therapy is increasingly recognized as a novel molecular intervention that has huge potential in treating common causes of blindness, the majority of which have a genetic aetiology1–5. Choroideremia is a chronic X-linked retinal degeneration that was first described in 18726. It leads to progressive blindness due to deficiency of Rab-escort protein 1 (REP1). We designed an adeno-associated viral vector to express REP1 and assessed it in a gene therapy clinical trial by subretinal injection in 14 patients with choroideremia. The primary endpoint was vision change in treated eyes 2 years after surgery compared to unoperated fellow eyes. Despite complications in two patients, visual acuity improved in the 14 treated eyes over controls (median 4.5 letter gain, versus 1.5 letter loss, P = 0.04), with 6 treated eyes gaining more than one line of vision (>5 letters). The results suggest that retinal gene therapy can sustain and improve visual acuity in a cohort of predominantly late-stage choroideremia patients in whom rapid visual acuity loss would ordinarily be predicted. The long-term follow-up results of a phase 1/2 retinal gene therapy clinical trial for choroideremia (NCT01461213) support the safety and efficacy of the treatment.

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 · 10.1038/s41591-018-0185-5

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • Ocular AAV treatments have caused permanent visual acuity loss after intraocular inflammation.

    “ocular AAV therapies leading to a permanent reduction in visual acuity following intraocular inflammation (9–11)”

    From Engineering adeno-associated viral vectors to evade innate immune and inflammatory responses (2021) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Results report significant retinal inflammation in patient C2 two weeks after AAV treatment, and Online Methods describe it as visually significant vitritis and retinitis. Neither passage establishes a permanent reduction in visual acuity. The Discussion also says the inflammation might have been related to the injection surgery, so its cause is uncertain. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Clinical trials have reported AAV dose-dependent intraocular inflammation and persistent visual acuity loss after subretinal AAV despite prophylactic immunosuppression.

    “AAV dose-dependent intraocular inflammation and a few instances of persistent loss of visual acuity have been independently reported in clinical trials following subretinal AAV administration despite prophylactic immunosuppression (9–11).”

    From Engineering adeno-associated viral vectors to evade innate immune and inflammatory responses (2021) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Online Methods report visually significant vitritis and retinitis in patient C2 despite prophylactic prednisolone. The Results identify C2 as a high-dose recipient, but neither the Results nor Discussion establishes a dose-dependent pattern of inflammation. They also do not report persistent visual-acuity loss; the Results instead report an overall improvement in treated eyes at two years. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Dose-dependent retinal inflammation (GTAU) has been observed in many retinal gene therapy trials, limiting vector dose and therapeutic efficacy.

    “Despite the perceived low immunogenicity of AAV and relative immune privilege of the intraocular environment,8 dose-dependent retinal inflammation, or gene therapy-associated uveitis (GTAU), has been observed in many retinal gene therapy trials, which limits the vector dose and therapeutic efficacy.”

    From Characterizing the cellular immune response to subretinal AAV gene therapy in the murine retina (2021) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Results report significant retinal inflammation in one patient (C2), described as most likely vector-related; the Discussion adds that it might instead have resulted from surgical vector reflux. The paper does not establish a dose-dependent pattern across many trials or say that inflammation limited vector dose or therapeutic efficacy. Its Online Methods describe an extended steroid regimen after C2’s inflammation, not a dose reduction. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In phase 1/2 dose-escalation trials for RPE65-associated LCA, choroideremia, and RPGR-associated X-linked retinitis pigmentosa, patients receiving higher doses of AAV presented with signs of retinal inflammation including vitritis, retinitis, and choroiditis.

    “In the phase 1/2 dose-escalation trials for RPE65-associated LCA, choroideremia, and retinitis pigmentosa GTPase regulator (RPGR)-associated X-linked retinitis pigmentosa, patients receiving higher doses of AAV have presented with various signs of retinal inflammation, including vitritis, retinitis, and choroiditis,2,6,7 implicating the presence of a cell-mediated immune response.”

    From Characterizing the cellular immune response to subretinal AAV gene therapy in the murine retina (2021) · cites this paper as [6]

    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
  • Many current retinal gene therapy trials adopt a standardized immunosuppression protocol up to 21 days post-treatment, which may ameliorate this immune response in humans.

    “Many current retinal gene therapy trials adopt a standardized immunosuppression protocol up to 21 days post-treatment, which may ameliorate this immune response in humans.6,7,40”

    From Characterizing the cellular immune response to subretinal AAV gene therapy in the murine retina (2021) · cites this paper as [6]

    Online Methods (Subretinal administration of AAV vector; page unavailable) describes oral prednisolone in this trial, extended after a patient developed retinal inflammation. The amended regimen continued through day 18 after treatment, not day 21. This single trial also does not establish that many retinal gene therapy trials use a standardized protocol or that the extension ameliorates immune responses in humans. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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
Xue, K., Jolly, J. K., Barnard, A. R., Rudenko, A., Salvetti, A. P., Patrício, M. I., Edwards, T. L., Groppe, M., Orlans, H. O., Tolmachova, T., Black, G. C., Webster, A. R., Lotery, A. J., Holder, G. E., Downes, S. M., Seabra, M. C., & MacLaren, R. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • St Mary's Hospital (GB)
  • Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
MacLaren, Robert E.
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2018-10
Volume
24
Issue
10
Pages
1507-1512
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W2893026352
Cited by
185
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 1
FWCI
8.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (091984)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0515-10020, HICF-1009-006, NF-SI-0515-10047, CL-2014-13-003, ICA-CDRF-2016-02-002)
  • Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh
  • University College London
  • University of Oxford
  • Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
  • Medical Research Council (MR/N00101X/1)
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
choroideremia, retinal gene therapy, Rab escort protein 1, REP1, adeno-associated virus vectors, subretinal injection, visual acuity, X-linked retinal degeneration, gene therapy clinical trials, visual outcome
MeSH terms
Dependovirus, Adult, Aged, Genetic Vectors, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retina, Retinal Degeneration, Vision, Ocular, Visual Acuity, Genetic Therapy, Choroideremia, Adaptor Proteins, Signal Transducing

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