Practical Considerations for Delandistrogene Moxeparvovec Gene Therapy in Patients With Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

CRISPR-Based Gene Therapies: From Preclinical to Clinical Treatments

In recent years, clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPRs) and CRISPR-associated (Cas) protein have emerged as a revolutionary gene editing tool to treat inherited disorders affecting different organ systems, such as blood and muscles. Both hematological and neuromuscular genetic disorders benefit from genome editing approaches but face different challenges in their clinical translation. The ability of CRISPR/Cas9 technologies to modify hematopoietic stem cells ex vivo has greatly accelerated the development of genetic therapies for blood disorders. In the last decade, many clinical trials were initiated and are now delivering encouraging results. The recent FDA approval of Casgevy, the first CRISPR/Cas9-based drug for severe sickle cell disease and transfusion-dependent β-thalassemia, represents a significant milestone in the field and highlights the great potential of this technology. Similar preclinical efforts are currently expanding CRISPR therapies to other hematologic disorders such as primary immunodeficiencies. In the neuromuscular field, the versatility of CRISPR/Cas9 has been instrumental for the generation of new cellular and animal models of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), offering innovative platforms to speed up preclinical development of therapeutic solutions. Several corrective interventions have been proposed to genetically restore dystrophin production using the CRISPR toolbox and have demonstrated promising results in different DMD animal models. Although these advances represent a significant step forward to the clinical translation of CRISPR/Cas9 therapies to DMD, there are still many hurdles to overcome, such as in vivo delivery methods associated with high viral vector doses, together with safety and immunological concerns. Collectively, the results obtained in the hematological and neuromuscular fields emphasize the transformative impact of CRISPR/Cas9 for patients affected by these debilitating conditions. As each field suffers from different and specific challenges, the clinical translation of CRISPR therapies may progress differentially depending on the genetic disorder. Ongoing investigations and clinical trials will address risks and limitations of these therapies, including long-term efficacy, potential genotoxicity, and adverse immune reactions. This review provides insights into the diverse applications of CRISPR-based technologies in both preclinical and clinical settings for monogenic blood disorders and muscular dystrophy and compare advances in both fields while highlighting current trends, difficulties, and challenges to overcome.

Duchenne muscular dystrophy: promising early-stage clinical trials to watch

INTRODUCTION

Current therapies are unable to cure Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), a severe and common form of muscular dystrophy, and instead aim to delay disease progression. Several treatments currently in phase I trials could increase the number of therapeutic options available to patients.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to provide an overview of current treatments undergoing or having recently undergone early-stage trials. Several exon-skipping and gene therapy approaches are currently being investigated at the clinical stage to address an unmet need for DMD treatments. This article also covers Phase I trials from the last 5 years that involve inhibitors, small molecules, a purified synthetic flavanol, a cell-based therapy, and repurposed cardiac or tumor medications.

EXPERT OPINION

With antisense oligonucleotide (AON) treatments making up the majority of conditionally approved DMD therapies, most of the clinical trials occurring within the last 5 years have also evaluated exon-skipping AONs. The approval of Elevidys, a micro-dystrophin therapy, is reflected in a recent trend toward gene transfer therapies in phase I DMD clinical trials, but their safety and efficacy are being established in this phase of development. Other Phase I clinical-stage approaches are diverse, but have a range in efficacy, safety, and endpoint measures.