In utero Therapy for the Treatment of Sickle Cell Disease: Taking Advantage of the Fetal Immune System

In Utero Gene Therapy and its Application in Genetic Hearing Loss

For monogenic genetic diseases, in utero gene therapy (IUGT) shows the potential for early prevention against irreversible and lethal pathological changes. Moreover, animal models have also demonstrated the effectiveness of IUGT in the treatment of coagulation disorders, hemoglobinopathies, neurogenetic disorders, and metabolic and pulmonary diseases. For major alpha thalassemia and severe osteogenesis imperfecta, in utero stem cell transplantation has entered the phase I clinical trial stage. Within the realm of the inner ear, genetic hearing loss significantly hampers speech, cognitive, and intellectual development in children. Nowadays, gene therapies offer substantial promise for deafness, with the success of clinical trials in autosomal recessive deafness 9 using AAV-OTOF gene therapy. However, the majority of genetic mutations that cause deafness affect the development of cochlear structures before the birth of fetuses. Thus, gene therapy before alterations in cochlear structure leading to hearing loss has promising applications. In this review, addressing advances in various fields of IUGT, the progress, and application of IUGT in the treatment of genetic hearing loss are focused, in particular its implementation methods and unique advantages.

Ethical considerations of preconception and prenatal gene modification in the embryo and fetus

The National Academies of Sciences and Medicine 2020 consensus statement advocates the reinstatement of research in preconception heritable human genome editing (HHGE), despite the ethical concerns that have been voiced about interventions in the germline, and outlines criteria for its eventual clinical application to address monogenic disorders. However, the statement does not give adequate consideration to alternative technologies. Importantly, it omits comparison to fetal gene therapy (FGT), which involves gene modification applied prenatally to the developing fetus and which is better researched and less ethically contentious. While both technologies are applicable to the same monogenic diseases causing significant prenatal or early childhood morbidity, the benefits and risks of HHGE are distinct from FGT though there are important overlaps. FGT has the current advantage of a wealth of robust preclinical data, while HHGE is nascent technology and its feasibility for specific diseases still requires scientific proof. The ethical concerns surrounding each are unique and deserving of further discussion, as there are compelling arguments supporting research and eventual clinical translation of both technologies. In this Opinion, we consider HHGE and FGT through technical and ethical lenses, applying common ethical principles to provide a sense of their feasibility and acceptability. Currently, FGT is in a more advanced position for clinical translation and may be less ethically contentious than HHGE, so it deserves to be considered as an alternative therapy in further discussions on HHGE implementation.